One thing I wonder after all these posts: Is there a better platform out there for a fantasy based role playing game than the hodge-podge of rules that I have amalgamated into my table's game over the years? I guess I need to check out some of the other options.
Almost certainly. And not just because you're building off 2e, either. 2e's basically an unbalanceable mess of a system, but people have also learned a lot about designing RPGs since then. (One of the big ones being "D&D's going to D&D; find a different niche.")
But then you have to answer the question of what you want in a game. (Unless I say so, I have no serious experience with any of these games, and am not recommending them.)
Do you want something distinctly D&Dish?
D&D 3.5: It's D&D, but with coherent mechanics. As I understand it, it has major power creep issues, balance problems at high levels, and lots and lots of arithmetic
Pathfinder 1: D&D 3.5, revised
D&D 4: D&D rebuilt around a tactical combat system. I like it for what it is, but it's not flexible. Lots of very loud people on the internet hate it.
D&D 5: Presumably you've already discarded this one, but it's a perfectly functional D&D
Pathfinder 2: No idea how it's different from PF1, but I hear it is.
All the OSR games: If you wanted old-school D&D, you could keep playing 2e. Also, I find their advocates tedious, which doesn't necessarily mean anything about the games themselves.
Most everything else tends away from the class-based paradigm, but a couple I'm aware of that still kind of fit, though they're much more aimed at a specific style of game:
Dungeon World (or some other Powered by the Apocalypse fantasy game): Don't really know much about these. I've occasionally played other PbtA games at cons, but not often.
Blades in the Dark: A gritty heist-style game where you play a criminal gang. It seems good if that's what you want. (Very reminiscent of the Dishonored video game) There are also differently-flavored variants like Band of Blades. (Seems very inspired by the Black Company books from what I know of it.)
If you want something more meta, there's the DIE RPG, where you play our-world-people who play an RPG and get sucked into a fantasy world where they become their characters and sort through their personal issues.
Two that need customization:
If you want low-powered, "realistic" fantasy with dangerous combat and a lot of number crunching, there's always GURPS.
If you want loose, pulpy fantasy, there's FATE (Core or Accelerated) This is where I'd probably turn for a non-D&D heroic fantasy game these days.
But I don't really pay attention to the various RPG scenes. There's a lot more options out there.
One thing I wonder after all these posts: Is there a better platform out there for a fantasy based role playing game than the hodge-podge of rules that I have amalgamated into my table's game over the years? I guess I need to check out some of the other options.
Though I do play D&D, I had been thinking similar thoughts, and have since been building a sci-fi based adventure using the Savage Worlds (SWADE) system.
It is certainly a different system to learn, but its overall feeling of being a simpler rule set, combined with an open character creation setup [no classes and sub-classes, just Skills and Edges to choose from, with a little help from a list of archetypes], makes me feel good about using it in what is essentially a 100% home-brew setting.
Can it work for your fantasy setting? I see no reason why not.
{Hope I'm not stepping on any corporate toes, here}
In the big scheme of things, from the perspective of modern game design, Dungeons and Dragons is often presumed to be the front-runner because it is the most popular and highest-grossing game which is a sort of the "capitalist" definition of success, aka, you made the most money, you must be the best. The truth is that 5th edition and 6th edition even with all the changes proposed are at least a decade if not two behind what is actually happening in RPG design. To put it plainly, I can't think of any fantasy RPG that isn't miles ahead of 5e and the proposed 6e that came out in the last 10 years from a design perspective.
I know the base assumption of the future is that its bright for D&D, but 5th edition wasn't some brilliant stroke of insight or design by Wizards of the Coast, or some sort of master marketing plan or correct interpretation of player desires. In short it wasn't a series of decisions that led to its success. Truth is that WotC is just a bunch of fumbling idiots who got stupid lucky because a trend-fad took place at the right time with things like Critical Role and Stranger Things, a moving train they simply jumped onboard with. I guarantee you that if the same thing happened during 4th edition, it, instead of 5e, would be the most popular and best-selling version of D&D in franchise history. It has ZERO to do with the quality of the game design, marketing, decisions or anything else and everything to do with a tribal mentality of a positive trend.
Next year, the game and the plan for the game will have to stand on its own merits and the player base is going to be put to the decisions like whether or not they are going to be replacing their books, whether investing in the VTT is worth it and whether they are willing to support a company like WotC. I don't think anyone can predict what will happen, but it's unlikely that the popularity of the game is going to continue to be driven by what effectively amounted to external factors. There is no BG3 coming out next year either to boost sales and bail out Hasbro, so the mother companie's decline will likely continue to impact WotC.
I'm looking at games like DC20, MCDM RPG, Dagger Heart, Starfinder 2nd edition, Stormlight, Final Fantasy RPG and Tales of the Valiant just off the top of my head not even accounting for the OSR stuff. Suffice to say there are once again going to be lots of options for fans, which is not unusual, we have such options each year, but for me personally, it feels very different this year. Many of these RPG's are being made by companies with a lot of clout and good will built up not to mention incredible talent. I think its going to be a much more competitive year than most.
Here is where I appear and point out that terminology such as "best', 'good", 'better", "worst", "bad", etc are all subjective opinions worth exactly as much as which side of your toast you like buttered.
Some of the games that in my opinion have the absolute worst possible design and structure are games that others will say are leaps and bounds better. It is opinion.
The issue isn't one of better or worse, the issue is one of what works and is most enjoyable for the people playing.
And the only way to find out if you enjoy something or if it is something your players will enjoy is to give things a shot. Well over half the games I have played over the years were all hailed as awesome and great or created by the folks that would knock D&D off its throne, and the companies don't even exist anymore.
Was not a waste of time or effort -- we learned what we liked and didnt like. We took ideas and worked them into our stuff over the years. The big thing was we played them.
Save for games that came out (not new editions, but new games) in the last year, we've played pretty much every game within our interest range that's ever been released.
I still play and work with D&D -- it took them creating 5.0 and my grudgingly giving it a go for me to come over to it -- for years we just kept going back to our 1e/2e stuff. And now I'm doing the same thing to it I did to 1w/2e, and following the rule of make it your own.
If D&D was the only game anyone ever needed, there wouldn't be other games.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Here is where I appear and point out that terminology such as "best', 'good", 'better", "worst", "bad", etc are all subjective opinions worth exactly as much as which side of your toast you like buttered.
Some of the games that in my opinion have the absolute worst possible design and structure are games that others will say are leaps and bounds better. It is opinion.
The issue isn't one of better or worse, the issue is one of what works and is most enjoyable for the people playing.
And the only way to find out if you enjoy something or if it is something your players will enjoy is to give things a shot. Well over half the games I have played over the years were all hailed as awesome and great or created by the folks that would knock D&D off its throne, and the companies don't even exist anymore.
Was not a waste of time or effort -- we learned what we liked and didnt like. We took ideas and worked them into our stuff over the years. The big thing was we played them.
Save for games that came out (not new editions, but new games) in the last year, we've played pretty much every game within our interest range that's ever been released.
I still play and work with D&D -- it took them creating 5.0 and my grudgingly giving it a go for me to come over to it -- for years we just kept going back to our 1e/2e stuff. And now I'm doing the same thing to it I did to 1w/2e, and following the rule of make it your own.
If D&D was the only game anyone ever needed, there wouldn't be other games.
Perhaps, but I do think there is such a thing as "current or modern design", "current or modern design approaches and methods" and other less opinion and more fact-based aspects to table top RPG's. Wether you like those things or not is certainly a matter of opinion, but I don't think there is any doubt about their existence.
In any evolving hobby, in particular game design, there is movement forward. In video games it's often driven by technology as much as game design, but in table top RPG's game design is definitely the front runner of the hobbies evolution. Case in point take something like THAC0. Designers found a simpler, more streamlined solution for making attacks. Now you could argue that it is just an "opinion" that the modern attack bonus and ascending armor class is better, but, I think that would be disingenuous, I do think there is such a thing as objectively better game design. You might or might not like it, and have an opinion that THAC0 is better, but I don't think that is a conversation about game design, its a conversation about preference. We aren't debating about whether the color blue is prettier than the color red, we are talking about the chemical quality of the paint itself. Its a different conversation.
Like, game design evolutions and improvements aren't really opinion-based solutions, they are testable constructs that can be proven to be better and in that context, better is in fact, a testable, provable, better.
The truth is that 5th edition and 6th edition even with all the changes proposed are at least a decade if not two behind what is actually happening in RPG design.
Well, the core problem is that people have a concept of what 'D&D' is, which makes it very hard to update it to anything newer. 4th edition is a case in point. It wasn't really terribly informed by trends in RPG design, it was more really more of a tactical board game, but given that D&D has its roots in tactical wargaming, it's hardly inherently unreasonable. However... people just didn't like it, because it wasn't what they thought of as D&D.
The truth is that 5th edition and 6th edition even with all the changes proposed are at least a decade if not two behind what is actually happening in RPG design.
Well, the core problem is that people have a concept of what 'D&D' is, which makes it very hard to update it to anything newer. 4th edition is a case in point. It wasn't really terribly informed by trends in RPG design, it was more really more of a tactical board game, but given that D&D has its roots in tactical wargaming, it's hardly inherently unreasonable. However... people just didn't like it, because it wasn't what they thought of as D&D.
True but I think the situation with 4e was kind of unique in a couple of ways. Traditionally the evolution of D&D rules has always been based on the principles of the last edition with the evolution being based on what the RPG community was already doing with the game and what is happening in tabletop RPG's design in general. A sort of melting of ideas to come up with a new, more streamlined, more effective game. The other thing that typically happens especially with D&D is that the goal is retention of your current audiance.
None of those things really happened. The game did not evolve based on what D&D players or the RPG hobby was doing at the time, the game was not based on anything specific taking place in the RPG hobby design space and the target audience was not existing D&D players but a presumed/supposed next generation of gamers.
It was in a word, quite risky what they did. The fact that a lot of promised stuff like the VTT and management tools never materialized didn't help the situation.
Personally, though I still stand by the idea that 4e released under any other name would have been a very successful RPG. Like, it wasn't a bad design, it just simply as you point out, was simply not D&Dish enough.
Here is where I appear and point out that terminology such as "best', 'good", 'better", "worst", "bad", etc are all subjective opinions worth exactly as much as which side of your toast you like buttered.
Some of the games that in my opinion have the absolute worst possible design and structure are games that others will say are leaps and bounds better. It is opinion.
The issue isn't one of better or worse, the issue is one of what works and is most enjoyable for the people playing.
And the only way to find out if you enjoy something or if it is something your players will enjoy is to give things a shot. Well over half the games I have played over the years were all hailed as awesome and great or created by the folks that would knock D&D off its throne, and the companies don't even exist anymore.
Was not a waste of time or effort -- we learned what we liked and didnt like. We took ideas and worked them into our stuff over the years. The big thing was we played them.
Save for games that came out (not new editions, but new games) in the last year, we've played pretty much every game within our interest range that's ever been released.
I still play and work with D&D -- it took them creating 5.0 and my grudgingly giving it a go for me to come over to it -- for years we just kept going back to our 1e/2e stuff. And now I'm doing the same thing to it I did to 1w/2e, and following the rule of make it your own.
If D&D was the only game anyone ever needed, there wouldn't be other games.
Perhaps, but I do think there is such a thing as "current or modern design", "current or modern design approaches and methods" and other less opinion and more fact-based aspects to table top RPG's. Wether you like those things or not is certainly a matter of opinion, but I don't think there is any doubt about their existence.
In any evolving hobby, in particular game design, there is movement forward. In video games it's often driven by technology as much as game design, but in table top RPG's game design is definitely the front runner of the hobbies evolution. Case in point take something like THAC0. Designers found a simpler, more streamlined solution for making attacks. Now you could argue that it is just an "opinion" that the modern attack bonus and ascending armor class is better, but, I think that would be disingenuous, I do think there is such a thing as objectively better game design. You might or might not like it, and have an opinion that THAC0 is better, but I don't think that is a conversation about game design, its a conversation about preference. We aren't debating about whether the color blue is prettier than the color red, we are talking about the chemical quality of the paint itself. Its a different conversation.
Like, game design evolutions and improvements aren't really opinion-based solutions, they are testable constructs that can be proven to be better and in that context, better is in fact, a testable, provable, better.
Well, see, that's the problem -- what makes it "better"? What makes it "modern"? The concepts themselves are subjective, so arguing to the subjective isn't a strong argument. Because the chemical quality of the paint isn't something that one can say is substantively "better" or "worse" without being subjective, and without throwing out the key element that makes it subjective.
What makes it better? Adhesion, durability, all the measures that one uses to define a property are all themselves dependent on a subjective purpose and goal -- and in the case of TTRPGs, the subjective goal is always to have fun for that specific group of people or that specific person, and thus it cannot be anything but a subjective basis. While one particular shade of back might be good for hose trims in the northeast, that same shade of black could be utterly worthless under the scorching heat of the Phoenix summer under the same baseline measures -- and note that paints do have a baseline.
Now, I won't argue that there are mechanics and systems that are "really cool' and some that are "clunky" when in play. But, those are still subjective opinions.
Because there is no baseline for the determination of what makes a game better or worse. You can argue that D&D is the default -- but in so doing, you are acknowledging that same capitalist basis that you noted previously. WHich means the measure of success is going to be the number of people who play the damn game and the number of games that are derived and developed from it.
But that isn't your point, and I certainly wouldn't recommend that one use that as the basis by which one says a game is good, better, best, worse, or worst. I also want to clarify things.
There is a difference between a Game and a Resolution Mechanic. A game is D&D, a Resolution Mechanic is a simulation of an outcome, such as your THAC0 example. A game has a lot of resolution mechanics. Some may be mathematically valuable, but they must always operate contextually within the game itself -- this is a core precept of game design, after all.
Which is objectively better:
Class System or Skill system?
Ability Scores or no Ability Scores?
3 scores, 6 scores, 9 scores, 12 scores?
Physical Parts or Abstract measure of harm and damage?
These might seem like I am arguing to my benefit, but I didn't choose them for that reason: they are some underlying base mechanic systems that still define major design groups and those who try to find a path through the divisions. These are questions that still haven't been settled as a basis of "what is best" on a mechanical and mathematical basis since the 1940's (when they applied to wargaming in an era that was exhausted from war). None of them have been answered. Ever. All are still expressions of preference, of subjective opinion.
In order to establish any of this, you have to have a baseline. That baseline has to meet the expectations of all the people. It has to operate in the Role Playing Space, in the Combat Space, in the Flexibility for Players and the fluidity for the DM space. if it doesn't it isn't a baseline. All the measures have to be agreed upon by the assorted parties as having a real value in the determination (which iis, ultimately, a subjective basis itself, and is why even the EEEE stuff changes in an ever increasing way).
You have an area of 15 million hectares of land that have to be irrigated during a drought to a depth of 7 inches, and you have to do it in a way that meets the needs of the 70 million people whose lives depend on the crops -- but wait, you also have a civil war going on, and you need to know what the munitions will do to the soil and what the risk of unexploded ordnance are to the population as they use the assorted basic means at their disposal to attempt to eke out sustainability from this land. And you have to convince all the sides to adopt the outcomes suggested. THe only way to do that is to have a baseline.
There is bo baseline in game design -- theoretical or practical -- about any of it. All the arguments that say "this is better" are someone trying to sell you something.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
The truth is that 5th edition and 6th edition even with all the changes proposed are at least a decade if not two behind what is actually happening in RPG design.
Well, the core problem is that people have a concept of what 'D&D' is, which makes it very hard to update it to anything newer. 4th edition is a case in point. It wasn't really terribly informed by trends in RPG design, it was more really more of a tactical board game, but given that D&D has its roots in tactical wargaming, it's hardly inherently unreasonable. However... people just didn't like it, because it wasn't what they thought of as D&D.
True but I think the situation with 4e was kind of unique in a couple of ways. Traditionally the evolution of D&D rules has always been based on the principles of the last edition with the evolution being based on what the RPG community was already doing with the game and what is happening in tabletop RPG's design in general. A sort of melting of ideas to come up with a new, more streamlined, more effective game. The other thing that typically happens especially with D&D is that the goal is retention of your current audience.
None of those things really happened. The game did not evolve based on what D&D players or the RPG hobby was doing at the time, the game was not based on anything specific taking place in the RPG hobby design space and the target audience was not existing D&D players but a presumed/supposed next generation of gamers.
It was in a word, quite risky what they did. The fact that a lot of promised stuff like the VTT and management tools never materialized didn't help the situation.
Personally, though I still stand by the idea that 4e released under any other name would have been a very successful RPG. Like, it wasn't a bad design, it just simply as you point out, was simply not D&Dish enough.
I gotta say that I agree with almost this entire response.
My only quibble is the little bit in here, so I will change it slightly:
Traditionally the evolution of D&D rules has always been based on the principles of the last edition with the evolution being based on what the RPG community was already doing with the game and what is happening in tabletop RPG's design in general. A sort of melting of ideas to come up with a newer, more enjoyable game that gives the folks who play it a sense of engagement and ownership. The other thing that typically happens especially with D&D is that the goal is retention of your current audience.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Here is where I appear and point out that terminology such as "best', 'good", 'better", "worst", "bad", etc are all subjective opinions worth exactly as much as which side of your toast you like buttered.
Some of the games that in my opinion have the absolute worst possible design and structure are games that others will say are leaps and bounds better. It is opinion.
The issue isn't one of better or worse, the issue is one of what works and is most enjoyable for the people playing.
And the only way to find out if you enjoy something or if it is something your players will enjoy is to give things a shot. Well over half the games I have played over the years were all hailed as awesome and great or created by the folks that would knock D&D off its throne, and the companies don't even exist anymore.
Was not a waste of time or effort -- we learned what we liked and didnt like. We took ideas and worked them into our stuff over the years. The big thing was we played them.
Save for games that came out (not new editions, but new games) in the last year, we've played pretty much every game within our interest range that's ever been released.
I still play and work with D&D -- it took them creating 5.0 and my grudgingly giving it a go for me to come over to it -- for years we just kept going back to our 1e/2e stuff. And now I'm doing the same thing to it I did to 1w/2e, and following the rule of make it your own.
If D&D was the only game anyone ever needed, there wouldn't be other games.
Perhaps, but I do think there is such a thing as "current or modern design", "current or modern design approaches and methods" and other less opinion and more fact-based aspects to table top RPG's. Wether you like those things or not is certainly a matter of opinion, but I don't think there is any doubt about their existence.
In any evolving hobby, in particular game design, there is movement forward. In video games it's often driven by technology as much as game design, but in table top RPG's game design is definitely the front runner of the hobbies evolution. Case in point take something like THAC0. Designers found a simpler, more streamlined solution for making attacks. Now you could argue that it is just an "opinion" that the modern attack bonus and ascending armor class is better, but, I think that would be disingenuous, I do think there is such a thing as objectively better game design. You might or might not like it, and have an opinion that THAC0 is better, but I don't think that is a conversation about game design, its a conversation about preference. We aren't debating about whether the color blue is prettier than the color red, we are talking about the chemical quality of the paint itself. Its a different conversation.
Like, game design evolutions and improvements aren't really opinion-based solutions, they are testable constructs that can be proven to be better and in that context, better is in fact, a testable, provable, better.
Well, see, that's the problem -- what makes it "better"? What makes it "modern"? The concepts themselves are subjective, so arguing to the subjective isn't a strong argument. Because the chemical quality of the paint isn't something that one can say is substantively "better" or "worse" without being subjective, and without throwing out the key element that makes it subjective.
What makes it better? Adhesion, durability, all the measures that one uses to define a property are all themselves dependent on a subjective purpose and goal -- and in the case of TTRPGs, the subjective goal is always to have fun for that specific group of people or that specific person, and thus it cannot be anything but a subjective basis. While one particular shade of back might be good for hose trims in the northeast, that same shade of black could be utterly worthless under the scorching heat of the Phoenix summer under the same baseline measures -- and note that paints do have a baseline.
Now, I won't argue that there are mechanics and systems that are "really cool' and some that are "clunky" when in play. But, those are still subjective opinions.
Because there is no baseline for the determination of what makes a game better or worse. You can argue that D&D is the default -- but in so doing, you are acknowledging that same capitalist basis that you noted previously. WHich means the measure of success is going to be the number of people who play the damn game and the number of games that are derived and developed from it.
But that isn't your point, and I certainly wouldn't recommend that one use that as the basis by which one says a game is good, better, best, worse, or worst. I also want to clarify things.
There is a difference between a Game and a Resolution Mechanic. A game is D&D, a Resolution Mechanic is a simulation of an outcome, such as your THAC0 example. A game has a lot of resolution mechanics. Some may be mathematically valuable, but they must always operate contextually within the game itself -- this is a core precept of game design, after all.
Which is objectively better:
Class System or Skill system?
Ability Scores or no Ability Scores?
3 scores, 6 scores, 9 scores, 12 scores?
Physical Parts or Abstract measure of harm and damage?
These might seem like I am arguing to my benefit, but I didn't choose them for that reason: they are some underlying base mechanic systems that still define major design groups and those who try to find a path through the divisions. These are questions that still haven't been settled as a basis of "what is best" on a mechanical and mathematical basis since the 1940's (when they applied to wargaming in an era that was exhausted from war). None of them have been answered. Ever. All are still expressions of preference, of subjective opinion.
In order to establish any of this, you have to have a baseline. That baseline has to meet the expectations of all the people. It has to operate in the Role Playing Space, in the Combat Space, in the Flexibility for Players and the fluidity for the DM space. if it doesn't it isn't a baseline. All the measures have to be agreed upon by the assorted parties as having a real value in the determination (which iis, ultimately, a subjective basis itself, and is why even the EEEE stuff changes in an ever increasing way).
You have an area of 15 million hectares of land that have to be irrigated during a drought to a depth of 7 inches, and you have to do it in a way that meets the needs of the 70 million people whose lives depend on the crops -- but wait, you also have a civil war going on, and you need to know what the munitions will do to the soil and what the risk of unexploded ordnance are to the population as they use the assorted basic means at their disposal to attempt to eke out sustainability from this land. And you have to convince all the sides to adopt the outcomes suggested. THe only way to do that is to have a baseline.
There is bo baseline in game design -- theoretical or practical -- about any of it. All the arguments that say "this is better" are someone trying to sell you something.
Actually I would argue that there is such a thing as a baseline for what is good and modern game design. Modern game design is taught at universities, it is an evolving field of study and the people who determine what is quantified as good and modern game design are the experienced game designers who use that experience to design and teach the courses. It may not be sufficiently objective for some, but if you want to learn game design as a field of study and you enter a university, just like there is Social Studies, history and math, there is modern game design. I suppose you could argue that how history is taught at university is "subjective", but I think most would agree that in academia there is such a thing as the truth over opinion.
Needless to say, you could point at any game design and someone who studies game design can explain to you why it is or isn't modern or good game design.
I understand what you are driving at but if you look at a system like THAC0, it's not difficult to understand that this is not good or modern game design. Is that an opinion? Sure it can be grouped and identified like that, but a professional game designer would probably be a bit more forthright and explain how and why this is not good game design and how that is not a matter of opinion, but objective truth through analysis and assessment.
With the way you describe subjectivity and opinion, 1+1 = 2 becomes a point of debate about preference, belief and opinion, as there is always some method, mode or spin you can rationalize to claim that it is in fact 0.
I find such debates to be counter-productive because if everything is in fact a matter of opinion, then the only true measure of wether something is good or bad is how many people are willing to buy it. The mob opinion becomes fact, a premise I don't buy into no matter how you spin it.
Here is where I appear and point out that terminology such as "best', 'good", 'better", "worst", "bad", etc are all subjective opinions worth exactly as much as which side of your toast you like buttered.
Some of the games that in my opinion have the absolute worst possible design and structure are games that others will say are leaps and bounds better. It is opinion.
The issue isn't one of better or worse, the issue is one of what works and is most enjoyable for the people playing.
And the only way to find out if you enjoy something or if it is something your players will enjoy is to give things a shot. Well over half the games I have played over the years were all hailed as awesome and great or created by the folks that would knock D&D off its throne, and the companies don't even exist anymore.
Was not a waste of time or effort -- we learned what we liked and didnt like. We took ideas and worked them into our stuff over the years. The big thing was we played them.
Save for games that came out (not new editions, but new games) in the last year, we've played pretty much every game within our interest range that's ever been released.
I still play and work with D&D -- it took them creating 5.0 and my grudgingly giving it a go for me to come over to it -- for years we just kept going back to our 1e/2e stuff. And now I'm doing the same thing to it I did to 1w/2e, and following the rule of make it your own.
If D&D was the only game anyone ever needed, there wouldn't be other games.
Perhaps, but I do think there is such a thing as "current or modern design", "current or modern design approaches and methods" and other less opinion and more fact-based aspects to table top RPG's. Wether you like those things or not is certainly a matter of opinion, but I don't think there is any doubt about their existence.
In any evolving hobby, in particular game design, there is movement forward. In video games it's often driven by technology as much as game design, but in table top RPG's game design is definitely the front runner of the hobbies evolution. Case in point take something like THAC0. Designers found a simpler, more streamlined solution for making attacks. Now you could argue that it is just an "opinion" that the modern attack bonus and ascending armor class is better, but, I think that would be disingenuous, I do think there is such a thing as objectively better game design. You might or might not like it, and have an opinion that THAC0 is better, but I don't think that is a conversation about game design, its a conversation about preference. We aren't debating about whether the color blue is prettier than the color red, we are talking about the chemical quality of the paint itself. Its a different conversation.
Like, game design evolutions and improvements aren't really opinion-based solutions, they are testable constructs that can be proven to be better and in that context, better is in fact, a testable, provable, better.
Well, see, that's the problem -- what makes it "better"? What makes it "modern"? The concepts themselves are subjective, so arguing to the subjective isn't a strong argument. Because the chemical quality of the paint isn't something that one can say is substantively "better" or "worse" without being subjective, and without throwing out the key element that makes it subjective.
What makes it better? Adhesion, durability, all the measures that one uses to define a property are all themselves dependent on a subjective purpose and goal -- and in the case of TTRPGs, the subjective goal is always to have fun for that specific group of people or that specific person, and thus it cannot be anything but a subjective basis. While one particular shade of back might be good for hose trims in the northeast, that same shade of black could be utterly worthless under the scorching heat of the Phoenix summer under the same baseline measures -- and note that paints do have a baseline.
Now, I won't argue that there are mechanics and systems that are "really cool' and some that are "clunky" when in play. But, those are still subjective opinions.
Because there is no baseline for the determination of what makes a game better or worse. You can argue that D&D is the default -- but in so doing, you are acknowledging that same capitalist basis that you noted previously. WHich means the measure of success is going to be the number of people who play the damn game and the number of games that are derived and developed from it.
But that isn't your point, and I certainly wouldn't recommend that one use that as the basis by which one says a game is good, better, best, worse, or worst. I also want to clarify things.
There is a difference between a Game and a Resolution Mechanic. A game is D&D, a Resolution Mechanic is a simulation of an outcome, such as your THAC0 example. A game has a lot of resolution mechanics. Some may be mathematically valuable, but they must always operate contextually within the game itself -- this is a core precept of game design, after all.
Which is objectively better:
Class System or Skill system?
Ability Scores or no Ability Scores?
3 scores, 6 scores, 9 scores, 12 scores?
Physical Parts or Abstract measure of harm and damage?
These might seem like I am arguing to my benefit, but I didn't choose them for that reason: they are some underlying base mechanic systems that still define major design groups and those who try to find a path through the divisions. These are questions that still haven't been settled as a basis of "what is best" on a mechanical and mathematical basis since the 1940's (when they applied to wargaming in an era that was exhausted from war). None of them have been answered. Ever. All are still expressions of preference, of subjective opinion.
In order to establish any of this, you have to have a baseline. That baseline has to meet the expectations of all the people. It has to operate in the Role Playing Space, in the Combat Space, in the Flexibility for Players and the fluidity for the DM space. if it doesn't it isn't a baseline. All the measures have to be agreed upon by the assorted parties as having a real value in the determination (which iis, ultimately, a subjective basis itself, and is why even the EEEE stuff changes in an ever increasing way).
You have an area of 15 million hectares of land that have to be irrigated during a drought to a depth of 7 inches, and you have to do it in a way that meets the needs of the 70 million people whose lives depend on the crops -- but wait, you also have a civil war going on, and you need to know what the munitions will do to the soil and what the risk of unexploded ordnance are to the population as they use the assorted basic means at their disposal to attempt to eke out sustainability from this land. And you have to convince all the sides to adopt the outcomes suggested. THe only way to do that is to have a baseline.
There is bo baseline in game design -- theoretical or practical -- about any of it. All the arguments that say "this is better" are someone trying to sell you something.
Actually I would argue that there is such a thing as a baseline for what is good and modern game design. Modern game design is taught at universities, it is an evolving field of study and the people who determine what is quantified as good and modern game design are the experienced game designers who use that experience to design and teach the courses. It may not be sufficiently objective for some, but if you want to learn game design as a field of study and you enter a university, just like there is Social Studies, history and math, there is modern game design. I suppose you could argue that how history is taught at university is "subjective", but I think most would agree that in academia there is such a thing as the truth over opinion.
Needless to say, you could point at any game design and someone who studies game design can explain to you why it is or isn't modern or good game design.
I understand what you are driving at but if you look at a system like THAC0, it's not difficult to understand that this is not good or modern game design. Is that an opinion? Sure it can be grouped and identified like that, but a professional game designer would probably be a bit more forthright and explain how and why this is not good game design and how that is not a matter of opinion, but objective truth through analysis and assessment.
With the way you describe subjectivity and opinion, 1+1 = 2 becomes a point of debate about preference, belief and opinion, as there is always some method, mode or spin you can rationalize to claim that it is in fact 0.
I find such debates to be counter-productive because if everything is in fact a matter of opinion, then the only true measure of wether something is good or bad is how many people are willing to buy it. The mob opinion becomes fact, a premise I don't buy into no matter how you spin it.
Bolded point is a strawman not even lightly supported by the evidence, given I used mathematical foundations in my arguments.
I am well aware that it is taught at universities. I teach aspects of cultural and psychological design as a guest lecturer about twice a semester. (That isn't as awesome as it sounds).
The reason I say there is no baseline is because there isn't one. And the arguments among faculty from different schools are just as much fun. THe exception being that they don't talk about what is good, because that's opinion, they talk about what is fast, what is mathematically simple, and what is comprehensible to folks who most often did not retain algebra from high school.
THe only places I see anyone talking about stuff like "good" and "modern" are places online, where someone holds forth on their opinion of what constitutes good and modern. A couple of them even work in game design -- most in video game design (which is where most of my students are focused), but a few in TT design.
I get that you want to throw your hands up and shake your head at me, lol, but the simple truth is that it really does come down to what works best for that person. I have a complex set up for resolving chases and vehicles and mounts that works within 5e -- I can think it is great all I want, and I can argue that it meets several standards of design, but in the end, it is still just a preference of mine, and not everyone will like it, even if I were to adapt it to a different system.
Both of us have been doing this forever -- we know what we like. Pretty sure both of us are nonplussed by the current owners and team, and neither of us are super keen on the way they have structured things. And it is really big, because of the stuff you pointed out previously -- we are part of a generation that had real impact on the game's form, shape, and structure prior to current ownership. That was a built in part of the whole, and there was a massive system that was built around it that allowed us to really dive into things.
good is always a subjective basis. Game, as a whole, is a huge thing -- it is much more effective and useful to speak to the Resolution Mechanics (which iis where all the good arguments are).
Compare D&D 1e to Tunnels and Trolls. To Paranoia. To Vampire, the masquerade. To Pathfinder. To Gurps. "good" is always subjective, because the measure of why it is good is always going to be subjective.
Compare it to Monopoly or Risk or any of the wargames that inspired it. Different structures -- still game design. Valid basis.
Compare the resolution mechanic for THAC0 to the one for an Attack Action in 5e. Resolution mechanics are where the discussion of the professionals is at, and there are benefits to both, but it depends on the nature of the design goals. it isn't so much that it is better, as it is sipler for someone to determine, and swifter for purposes of calculation and play. That could be bad, that could be good, that could be indifferent.
Don't conflate the concept of a game with the resolution mechanics, which can vary within a game -- and be good or bad. I like a realism influenced fantasy game style. That is a nice way of saying I like more crunch. AD&D gave me that love and then ICE just dumped hot coals on it, lol.
But my players don't like as much crunch as me -- now, which is "better"? What you call "modern game design" would generally indicate that less crunch, more universalized resolution mechanics, and speed of play are "better" as a whole -- even though such things make me less inclined to want to play a game and consider it a bad game -- and there are a lot of designers who would agree (just none of them at WotC).
Don't think I am against you -- I am not. I am just pointing out that what passes for arguments about "this game is better than that game" are overly simplistic and have little basis in truth or fact.
Is the PF system of attaching a gemstone to a weapon to improve it better than the D&D system that doesn't allow for improvement? That's a resolution mechanic.
if PF better than D&D? That's a game thing.
Every game has a value and a joy and a purpose. I might think that PF and the thing it forked off of are monstrosities that are unworthy of even uttering, but that's my opinion, and isn't worth a damn thing, nor does it make the game better or worse than D&D.
It is just different.
Because at the end of the day the thing that is important is "do people enjoy it". All other measures fall away. Not how many people, not what, not why, not all that other stuff. Do people enjoy it?
If yes, then it is a good game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
I get that you want to throw your hands up and shake your head at me, lol, but the simple truth is that it really does come down to what works best for that person
I find the conversation fascinating, not frustrating and your points interesting, not annoying.
Though at this stage, we have both already made our points, I don't think we are going to change each other's mind and I don't know how to re-affirm my position without repeating what I already said so, I suppose we are at an impasse and have to agree to disagree.
Well despite the ideas above that there is no such thing as a "good design" I continue my quest for a "good game." I am looking for a relatively simple character creation and specialization options and ease of gameplay in a high fantasy setting. I don't need anyone to write my adventures or campaigns as I write everything myself. I am quite adept at bending or breaking rules so the story can move forward and don't mind filling in the rule gaps as needed. I like the risk of PC death; I certainly don't prohibit character death, although it is not common either. Lastly, I don't like class bleed-over; every character cannot do every special attack, cast spells, heal, pick locks, etc. There may be some overlap, but there must be significant separation as well.
I looked a bit at Pathfinder over the last few days, and I do not think that is a good fit for me. My players still struggle with calculating to hit numbers (and we use the 5E system which is pretty easy, IMO. I discarded THACO when I found it. Which is sort of funny, considering several posts above talked about THACO which is indeed, the most bass-akward, convoluted system there is, even though it was better than the system in basic.). They struggle to remember spell durations, AOE, etc. I don't think they could sift through the various decisions of race, skills and level up tech trees.
Haven't heard of GURPS or Dungeon World. I lean towards continuing with my hybrid version. But open to suggestions and will check out the references above. Of course, if something is a close fit, I can always chop it up to make it more to my liking!
I am a 40 something year old physician who DMs for a group of 40 something year old doctors. We play a hybrid game, mostly based on 2nd edition rules with some homebrew and 5E components.
Well despite the ideas above that there is no such thing as a "good design" I continue my quest for a "good game." I am looking for a relatively simple character creation and specialization options and ease of gameplay in a high fantasy setting. I don't need anyone to write my adventures or campaigns as I write everything myself. I am quite adept at bending or breaking rules so the story can move forward and don't mind filling in the rule gaps as needed. I like the risk of PC death; I certainly don't prohibit character death, although it is not common either. Lastly, I don't like class bleed-over; every character cannot do every special attack, cast spells, heal, pick locks, etc. There may be some overlap, but there must be significant separation as well.
I looked a bit at Pathfinder over the last few days, and I do not think that is a good fit for me. My players still struggle with calculating to hit numbers (and we use the 5E system which is pretty easy, IMO. I discarded THACO when I found it. Which is sort of funny, considering several posts above talked about THACO which is indeed, the most bass-akward, convoluted system there is, even though it was better than the system in basic.). They struggle to remember spell durations, AOE, etc. I don't think they could sift through the various decisions of race, skills and level up tech trees.
Haven't heard of GURPS or Dungeon World. I lean towards continuing with my hybrid version. But open to suggestions and will check out the references above. Of course, if something is a close fit, I can always chop it up to make it more to my liking!
If your players struggle with calculating hit numbers, GURPS will not (nope, nope, nope with a cherry on top) be their jam. (Actual play might be fine, but they'll melt down in character creation.)
Given your description above, particularly that for a highly restrictive class system, I think your best bet is 5e and rewrite the classes and skills. (Personally, I think the 5e classes are usually fine for giving players a distinctive and unique set of abilities; they just don't have the old "you must have this class in your party" restrictions.)
Of course, there may be games that fit your needs out there, but I think the "strong classes with light mechanics" field is going to be thin.
Well despite the ideas above that there is no such thing as a "good design" I continue my quest for a "good game." I am looking for a relatively simple character creation and specialization options and ease of gameplay in a high fantasy setting. I don't need anyone to write my adventures or campaigns as I write everything myself. I am quite adept at bending or breaking rules so the story can move forward and don't mind filling in the rule gaps as needed. I like the risk of PC death; I certainly don't prohibit character death, although it is not common either. Lastly, I don't like class bleed-over; every character cannot do every special attack, cast spells, heal, pick locks, etc. There may be some overlap, but there must be significant separation as well.
I looked a bit at Pathfinder over the last few days, and I do not think that is a good fit for me. My players still struggle with calculating to hit numbers (and we use the 5E system which is pretty easy, IMO. I discarded THACO when I found it. Which is sort of funny, considering several posts above talked about THACO which is indeed, the most bass-akward, convoluted system there is, even though it was better than the system in basic.). They struggle to remember spell durations, AOE, etc. I don't think they could sift through the various decisions of race, skills and level up tech trees.
Haven't heard of GURPS or Dungeon World. I lean towards continuing with my hybrid version. But open to suggestions and will check out the references above. Of course, if something is a close fit, I can always chop it up to make it more to my liking!
From your description, despite the above post, everything you don't want IS in 5e D&D and everything you do want, 5e doesn't have any of at all, so you can very safely remove 5e from consideration. It's pretty much the exact opposite of what you are looking for.
GURPS is a pretty heavy system all around, though the core resolution mechanic is quite simple, the point of the games design is specifically to play it RAW as doing otherwise negates the mega focus on character options and core design. I don't think this is your bag.
Dungeon World is not a system at all, Dungeon World is a free-form role-playing game with a resolution mechanic you just as well replace with rock-paper-scissors, from what you are describing here, you are looking for something more robust, I don't think that is going to get the job done for you.
If you like 2nd edition AD&D and you want Ascending Armor Class and elimination of THAC0, I would consider Old School Essentials with the Advanced Fantasy rules upgrade. Its basically a D&D construction kit, you have all of the core races and classes and straightforward D&D mechanics that you are familiar with. Its effectively B/X with advanced D&D classes but balanced for B/X level play.
Another one you might want to look at is Shadow Dark, its a bit more robust than Old School Essentials but uses a lot of the modern evolutions of D&D mechanics without all the clunky junk.
If after looking at these you still feel there isn't enough chrome, Castles & Crusades is a kind of step up and it comes with expansion books that can be used to increase the amount of chrome in the game, so you can have more or less rules, kind of like a lever.
Given that you liked 2e AD&D, it does beg the question, did you use kits and expansion rules like skills & powers? Or did you just use the base game? If its the latter, you might be looking for more chrome than you realize. I'm often surprised how many gamers come to my local table where we play Pathfinder 2e, proclaiming its too rich heavy and then end up spending 3000 dollars on PF2e books. That actually happens a lot. PF2e is a very chromed out system, but its really well structured and after a bit of practice with it, it kind of grows on you. Like.. im like you, I prefer rules light systems, but I do love my PF2e.. its kind of an odd ball compared to the stuff I usually run/play, but it does work really well. It has a learning curve though.
Like, game design evolutions and improvements aren't really opinion-based solutions, they are testable constructs that can be proven to be better and in that context, better is in fact, a testable, provable, better.
I have to fall in AEDorsay on this one because although you can develop criteria to test and prove elements of game design, those criteria themselves are rooted in subjectivity. This is why it's game design and not game science.
What makes for better design? Simplicity for quick onboarding and easy adjudication, or complexity for deeper engagement and greater depth? You cannot assign objective weights to priorities like this, so design quality is ultimately always going to be subjective. That subjectivity is just buried a little deeper. Of course, there are objective measures within these categories. Added complexity that does not result in added depth is objectively bad design. But then how much added depth justifies a given amount of added complexity? How important is it to you? This can't be answered without opinion creeping in.
When you look at 5e's unprecedented success in expanding the playerbase, you've got to credit elements of the design for prioritizing accessibility and the shallow learning curve. But two editions on, will anyone be playing it the way people are still playing older editions, particularly 3.5 which still has a pretty strong base? I think the lack of complexity in 5e is part of the reason that most folks here are quite open to jumping to the next edition in 2024. There just aren't that many mechanics to engage in, and stuff that doesn't involve mechanics can be ported to the next edition with little effort. So is 5e well designed or not?
And the subjective nature of game design isn't a bad thing. Cultural preferences are always going to be a moving target.
Dungeon World is not a system at all, Dungeon World is a free-form role-playing game with a resolution mechanic you just as well replace with rock-paper-scissors, from what you are describing here, you are looking for something more robust, I don't think that is going to get the job done for you.
Having actually looked at it briefly (the SRD is on the internets), it's actually even more explicitly D&D-like than I was expecting from my experience with Apocalypse World and other PbtA games. The mechanics are certainly lightweight, but this characterization is inaccurate. It may not be to OP's taste (it is designed from a different philosophical approach to RPGs), but it seems to have at least some of what they want. (Defined classes, light mechanics, and easy to modify.)
Well despite the ideas above that there is no such thing as a "good design" I continue my quest for a "good game." I am looking for a relatively simple character creation and specialization options and ease of gameplay in a high fantasy setting. I don't need anyone to write my adventures or campaigns as I write everything myself. I am quite adept at bending or breaking rules so the story can move forward and don't mind filling in the rule gaps as needed. I like the risk of PC death; I certainly don't prohibit character death, although it is not common either. Lastly, I don't like class bleed-over; every character cannot do every special attack, cast spells, heal, pick locks, etc. There may be some overlap, but there must be significant separation as well.
I looked a bit at Pathfinder over the last few days, and I do not think that is a good fit for me. My players still struggle with calculating to hit numbers (and we use the 5E system which is pretty easy, IMO. I discarded THACO when I found it. Which is sort of funny, considering several posts above talked about THACO which is indeed, the most bass-akward, convoluted system there is, even though it was better than the system in basic.). They struggle to remember spell durations, AOE, etc. I don't think they could sift through the various decisions of race, skills and level up tech trees.
Haven't heard of GURPS or Dungeon World. I lean towards continuing with my hybrid version. But open to suggestions and will check out the references above. Of course, if something is a close fit, I can always chop it up to make it more to my liking!
Don't mistake what I was pointing out previously with any kind of absolutist position -- the benefit to having a subjective basis is tangible and real.
A "good Game" becomes the one that you enjoy, regardless of design choices or resolution mechanics.
Now, for your list:
Simple character creation
specialization options
ease of gameplay
rule gaps allowed
risk of PC death
no class bleed-over
IMO (and opinion is what we have for all of those things), and IME, 5e address 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Some people think that Skill systems are simpler than class systems (designers, included), whereas I tend to think of class systems as simpler. There are six ability scores. there are options for specialization in weapons and magic. The resolution mechanics for 5e are for the most part very easy in game play -- ya roll a die, add some numbers. The rule gaps in the game are fairly well known and alternatives to existing rules exist all over the place.
I basically took the game apart and put it back together to give a little more crunch, fill in some gaps, changed systems to work for my table, and while yeah, it's probably enough to fill a standard 250 page rule book, it was all key for the particular setting, because the world doesn't fit the rules, the rules fit the world, and my world only looks like a "typical DND world" on the surface.
THe stuff I hate most about 5e is item number 6, myself. 5e, really, has erased the distinctions between the Core Four (Fighter, Wizard, Rogue, Cleric) that existed in 1e/2e, and so bow all the classes are gishy and while I understand that, it doesn't work well with me. Hence why I created a bunch of new classes, and don't use the existing ones.
Each class has things that only it can do -- and I have 18 classes, and no subclasses. The old favorites are there: Bard, Fighter, Wizard. Rangers more or less got mixed in with Druids, Paladins are once again genuine holy warriors, Clerics are a bit of a twist, and yada yada. Each class was asked for by my players, and we kit bashed them together as a group (and while a big group, it works just as will in a smaller one), and we are still doing light playtesting of them -- currently in Tomb of Annihilation, because it means I can focus on what the classes are able to do and watch power levels.
They are, by and large, more powerful individually than the existing classes, in part because of how we handled a bunch of "unused special abilities". But all of this is to point out a key point here...
You can do this in any game system. While everything I am doing is for the new setting and my player group, I am posting it up on a website that is going to be the Reference Work for the game. I'm currently going through and rewriting and adding in spells (to fit the changed magic system that still uses the same spells), after which class bleed-over will go through and rewrite and add in those "unused special abilities" and then finally I will go back to the final writeups of the classes -- but everything else is done. The world, the peoples, the rule gaps, etc.
And when we tire of this world, I will do it again, lol.
So the issue is how much work do you want to do? for me, doing it in 5e was nearly the easiest changeover in 40 years of gaming to do this kind of work -- the only one easier for me was when I took the old TSR Marvel Advanced rules and did the same thing to them. And the reason I have done two years of playtesting on classes is that not only are all of them completely original, but also because I am lazy as hell and dun wanna write them up (because that means having to add in lore and I just did 350 pages of lore).
TO the original point, is my game balanced? Yes. And I don't even really believe in the concept of balance as it is often talked about in 5e (where it is Rogues should be as tough as fighters who should be able to take anything a mage throws at them, etc -- horsepucky). Each class should have its own strengths, and be measured against its own kind, because that's the whole point of an archetype basis.
sorry, got carried away a sec there.
But rather than wait for them to come around to do it, I just made it myself -- I made the game my own, and in so doing I've sorta screwed Wizards, lol. Because given our schedule, it will be five years before I even really look at the new books, except maybe to snag some item or spell that sounds cool. My monsters are all new, and I have 200 of them. My players were engaged in the whole world creation process, the rules process, the key things -- even suggested some of the films I am using to create the campaigns.
That's all my opinion. I wouldn't say that my rules or my game is for everyone. There are six other DMs in our group, all of whom are running games as well. They don't use all the rules we came up with collectively (rules bend to fit the world), and they don't have worlds that are like mine, nor is mine like theres.
I could tell you to base it off Paranoia rules -- they meet several of those points, but are not fantasy. I could even argue Tunnels and Trolls, lol, or Rabbits and Warrens (now there's a blast from the past).
To some people, GURPS is an "easy, simple system", and who the **** am I to argue with them? I wouldn't say that, lol. But perhaps for them it is easier to understand than a class based system. I loved the old Marvel game, but a lot of people found iit confusing and difficult.
You know what you want. I am not trying to get you to look to 5e. I want you to find a game that works for you. The underlying rules for the White Wolf stuff might work -- but not the setting or the larger structure. I wouldn't suggest any of the old ICE stuff, though.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Given that you liked 2e AD&D, it does beg the question, did you use kits and expansion rules like skills & powers? Or did you just use the base game? If its the latter, you might be looking for more chrome than you realize. I'm often surprised how many gamers come to my local table where we play Pathfinder 2e, proclaiming its too rich heavy and then end up spending 3000 dollars on PF2e books. That actually happens a lot. PF2e is a very chromed out system, but its really well structured and after a bit of practice with it, it kind of grows on you. Like.. im like you, I prefer rules light systems, but I do love my PF2e.. its kind of an odd ball compared to the stuff I usually run/play, but it does work really well. It has a learning curve though.....
Not sure what you mean by chrome. I have paper and electronic copies of all the 2E books. I have read through most of them and use pieces of ideas from many of them. There is a lot of fluff in the supplemental books but there are some gems as well. I have read three or four of the 5E books.
I do use kits. Many of these are homebrew but I have borrowed heavily from the supplemental books and the Baldur's gate rulebook, ending up with something that fits our table. I offer a handful or so; again my players don't even read the basic rules so I don't want to get to far off the beaten path. T he kits I have made provide flavor to the game and I have written several for a particular player(s), to fit who they want to play.
Is this what you were getting at?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Velstitzen
I am a 40 something year old physician who DMs for a group of 40 something year old doctors. We play a hybrid game, mostly based on 2nd edition rules with some homebrew and 5E components.
Not sure what you mean by chrome. I have paper and electronic copies of all the 2E books. I have read through most of them and use pieces of ideas from many of them. There is a lot of fluff in the supplemental books but there are some gems as well. I have read three or four of the 5E books.
I do use kits. Many of these are homebrew but I have borrowed heavily from the supplemental books and the Baldur's gate rulebook, ending up with something that fits our table. I offer a handful or so; again my players don't even read the basic rules so I don't want to get to far off the beaten path. T he kits I have made provide flavor to the game and I have written several for a particular player(s), to fit who they want to play.
Is this what you were getting at?
Yeah, chrome is sort of gaming slang for rules detail. For example you can describe an attack as 1e did as a 1d20 roll vs. AC, or you can have something like 4e where you have various unique attack types that you execute, some can be done once per encounter, once per day or others at will, each with its own unique effects and advantages. The latter is chrome, lots more detail to define something.
Kits fall into the arena of chrome... A Fighter can be described as a Barbarian, A Knight a Samurai narratively and you're done.. but kits chrome that out by making each of those unique fighter sub-classes with their own sub-systems and rules.
I think what it boils down to is that some DM's like to tinker, fine-tune a system to their preferences, by cutting rules they don't like, adjusting rules, adding new rules, mixing things in from other systems and ultimately coming up with their own unique take on the game. This style of DMing was extremely common practice in the 1e and 2e days, in fact, I'm not sure it was actually physically possible to play 1e AD&D rules as written. Modern design however has evolved quite a bit, these days you can find systems like Pathfinder 2e for example that cover every conceivable thing you could ever imagine doing, so there really is not much need to tinker, its a very complete game system that can be run rules as written and you will never find anything missing.
The question is wether you want to continue to tinker or are you looking for a robust, ready to go out of the box system that you can simply learn to play and then play as written.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Almost certainly. And not just because you're building off 2e, either. 2e's basically an unbalanceable mess of a system, but people have also learned a lot about designing RPGs since then. (One of the big ones being "D&D's going to D&D; find a different niche.")
But then you have to answer the question of what you want in a game. (Unless I say so, I have no serious experience with any of these games, and am not recommending them.)
Do you want something distinctly D&Dish?
Most everything else tends away from the class-based paradigm, but a couple I'm aware of that still kind of fit, though they're much more aimed at a specific style of game:
If you want something more meta, there's the DIE RPG, where you play our-world-people who play an RPG and get sucked into a fantasy world where they become their characters and sort through their personal issues.
Two that need customization:
But I don't really pay attention to the various RPG scenes. There's a lot more options out there.
Though I do play D&D, I had been thinking similar thoughts, and have since been building a sci-fi based adventure using the Savage Worlds (SWADE) system.
It is certainly a different system to learn, but its overall feeling of being a simpler rule set, combined with an open character creation setup [no classes and sub-classes, just Skills and Edges to choose from, with a little help from a list of archetypes], makes me feel good about using it in what is essentially a 100% home-brew setting.
Can it work for your fantasy setting? I see no reason why not.
{Hope I'm not stepping on any corporate toes, here}
In the big scheme of things, from the perspective of modern game design, Dungeons and Dragons is often presumed to be the front-runner because it is the most popular and highest-grossing game which is a sort of the "capitalist" definition of success, aka, you made the most money, you must be the best. The truth is that 5th edition and 6th edition even with all the changes proposed are at least a decade if not two behind what is actually happening in RPG design. To put it plainly, I can't think of any fantasy RPG that isn't miles ahead of 5e and the proposed 6e that came out in the last 10 years from a design perspective.
I know the base assumption of the future is that its bright for D&D, but 5th edition wasn't some brilliant stroke of insight or design by Wizards of the Coast, or some sort of master marketing plan or correct interpretation of player desires. In short it wasn't a series of decisions that led to its success. Truth is that WotC is just a bunch of fumbling idiots who got stupid lucky because a trend-fad took place at the right time with things like Critical Role and Stranger Things, a moving train they simply jumped onboard with. I guarantee you that if the same thing happened during 4th edition, it, instead of 5e, would be the most popular and best-selling version of D&D in franchise history. It has ZERO to do with the quality of the game design, marketing, decisions or anything else and everything to do with a tribal mentality of a positive trend.
Next year, the game and the plan for the game will have to stand on its own merits and the player base is going to be put to the decisions like whether or not they are going to be replacing their books, whether investing in the VTT is worth it and whether they are willing to support a company like WotC. I don't think anyone can predict what will happen, but it's unlikely that the popularity of the game is going to continue to be driven by what effectively amounted to external factors. There is no BG3 coming out next year either to boost sales and bail out Hasbro, so the mother companie's decline will likely continue to impact WotC.
I'm looking at games like DC20, MCDM RPG, Dagger Heart, Starfinder 2nd edition, Stormlight, Final Fantasy RPG and Tales of the Valiant just off the top of my head not even accounting for the OSR stuff. Suffice to say there are once again going to be lots of options for fans, which is not unusual, we have such options each year, but for me personally, it feels very different this year. Many of these RPG's are being made by companies with a lot of clout and good will built up not to mention incredible talent. I think its going to be a much more competitive year than most.
Here is where I appear and point out that terminology such as "best', 'good", 'better", "worst", "bad", etc are all subjective opinions worth exactly as much as which side of your toast you like buttered.
Some of the games that in my opinion have the absolute worst possible design and structure are games that others will say are leaps and bounds better. It is opinion.
The issue isn't one of better or worse, the issue is one of what works and is most enjoyable for the people playing.
And the only way to find out if you enjoy something or if it is something your players will enjoy is to give things a shot. Well over half the games I have played over the years were all hailed as awesome and great or created by the folks that would knock D&D off its throne, and the companies don't even exist anymore.
Was not a waste of time or effort -- we learned what we liked and didnt like. We took ideas and worked them into our stuff over the years. The big thing was we played them.
Save for games that came out (not new editions, but new games) in the last year, we've played pretty much every game within our interest range that's ever been released.
I still play and work with D&D -- it took them creating 5.0 and my grudgingly giving it a go for me to come over to it -- for years we just kept going back to our 1e/2e stuff. And now I'm doing the same thing to it I did to 1w/2e, and following the rule of make it your own.
If D&D was the only game anyone ever needed, there wouldn't be other games.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Perhaps, but I do think there is such a thing as "current or modern design", "current or modern design approaches and methods" and other less opinion and more fact-based aspects to table top RPG's. Wether you like those things or not is certainly a matter of opinion, but I don't think there is any doubt about their existence.
In any evolving hobby, in particular game design, there is movement forward. In video games it's often driven by technology as much as game design, but in table top RPG's game design is definitely the front runner of the hobbies evolution. Case in point take something like THAC0. Designers found a simpler, more streamlined solution for making attacks. Now you could argue that it is just an "opinion" that the modern attack bonus and ascending armor class is better, but, I think that would be disingenuous, I do think there is such a thing as objectively better game design. You might or might not like it, and have an opinion that THAC0 is better, but I don't think that is a conversation about game design, its a conversation about preference. We aren't debating about whether the color blue is prettier than the color red, we are talking about the chemical quality of the paint itself. Its a different conversation.
Like, game design evolutions and improvements aren't really opinion-based solutions, they are testable constructs that can be proven to be better and in that context, better is in fact, a testable, provable, better.
Well, the core problem is that people have a concept of what 'D&D' is, which makes it very hard to update it to anything newer. 4th edition is a case in point. It wasn't really terribly informed by trends in RPG design, it was more really more of a tactical board game, but given that D&D has its roots in tactical wargaming, it's hardly inherently unreasonable. However... people just didn't like it, because it wasn't what they thought of as D&D.
True but I think the situation with 4e was kind of unique in a couple of ways. Traditionally the evolution of D&D rules has always been based on the principles of the last edition with the evolution being based on what the RPG community was already doing with the game and what is happening in tabletop RPG's design in general. A sort of melting of ideas to come up with a new, more streamlined, more effective game. The other thing that typically happens especially with D&D is that the goal is retention of your current audiance.
None of those things really happened. The game did not evolve based on what D&D players or the RPG hobby was doing at the time, the game was not based on anything specific taking place in the RPG hobby design space and the target audience was not existing D&D players but a presumed/supposed next generation of gamers.
It was in a word, quite risky what they did. The fact that a lot of promised stuff like the VTT and management tools never materialized didn't help the situation.
Personally, though I still stand by the idea that 4e released under any other name would have been a very successful RPG. Like, it wasn't a bad design, it just simply as you point out, was simply not D&Dish enough.
Well, see, that's the problem -- what makes it "better"? What makes it "modern"? The concepts themselves are subjective, so arguing to the subjective isn't a strong argument. Because the chemical quality of the paint isn't something that one can say is substantively "better" or "worse" without being subjective, and without throwing out the key element that makes it subjective.
What makes it better? Adhesion, durability, all the measures that one uses to define a property are all themselves dependent on a subjective purpose and goal -- and in the case of TTRPGs, the subjective goal is always to have fun for that specific group of people or that specific person, and thus it cannot be anything but a subjective basis. While one particular shade of back might be good for hose trims in the northeast, that same shade of black could be utterly worthless under the scorching heat of the Phoenix summer under the same baseline measures -- and note that paints do have a baseline.
Now, I won't argue that there are mechanics and systems that are "really cool' and some that are "clunky" when in play. But, those are still subjective opinions.
Because there is no baseline for the determination of what makes a game better or worse. You can argue that D&D is the default -- but in so doing, you are acknowledging that same capitalist basis that you noted previously. WHich means the measure of success is going to be the number of people who play the damn game and the number of games that are derived and developed from it.
But that isn't your point, and I certainly wouldn't recommend that one use that as the basis by which one says a game is good, better, best, worse, or worst. I also want to clarify things.
There is a difference between a Game and a Resolution Mechanic. A game is D&D, a Resolution Mechanic is a simulation of an outcome, such as your THAC0 example. A game has a lot of resolution mechanics. Some may be mathematically valuable, but they must always operate contextually within the game itself -- this is a core precept of game design, after all.
Which is objectively better:
These might seem like I am arguing to my benefit, but I didn't choose them for that reason: they are some underlying base mechanic systems that still define major design groups and those who try to find a path through the divisions. These are questions that still haven't been settled as a basis of "what is best" on a mechanical and mathematical basis since the 1940's (when they applied to wargaming in an era that was exhausted from war). None of them have been answered. Ever. All are still expressions of preference, of subjective opinion.
In order to establish any of this, you have to have a baseline. That baseline has to meet the expectations of all the people. It has to operate in the Role Playing Space, in the Combat Space, in the Flexibility for Players and the fluidity for the DM space. if it doesn't it isn't a baseline. All the measures have to be agreed upon by the assorted parties as having a real value in the determination (which iis, ultimately, a subjective basis itself, and is why even the EEEE stuff changes in an ever increasing way).
You have an area of 15 million hectares of land that have to be irrigated during a drought to a depth of 7 inches, and you have to do it in a way that meets the needs of the 70 million people whose lives depend on the crops -- but wait, you also have a civil war going on, and you need to know what the munitions will do to the soil and what the risk of unexploded ordnance are to the population as they use the assorted basic means at their disposal to attempt to eke out sustainability from this land. And you have to convince all the sides to adopt the outcomes suggested. THe only way to do that is to have a baseline.
There is bo baseline in game design -- theoretical or practical -- about any of it. All the arguments that say "this is better" are someone trying to sell you something.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
I gotta say that I agree with almost this entire response.
My only quibble is the little bit in here, so I will change it slightly:
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Actually I would argue that there is such a thing as a baseline for what is good and modern game design. Modern game design is taught at universities, it is an evolving field of study and the people who determine what is quantified as good and modern game design are the experienced game designers who use that experience to design and teach the courses. It may not be sufficiently objective for some, but if you want to learn game design as a field of study and you enter a university, just like there is Social Studies, history and math, there is modern game design. I suppose you could argue that how history is taught at university is "subjective", but I think most would agree that in academia there is such a thing as the truth over opinion.
Needless to say, you could point at any game design and someone who studies game design can explain to you why it is or isn't modern or good game design.
I understand what you are driving at but if you look at a system like THAC0, it's not difficult to understand that this is not good or modern game design. Is that an opinion? Sure it can be grouped and identified like that, but a professional game designer would probably be a bit more forthright and explain how and why this is not good game design and how that is not a matter of opinion, but objective truth through analysis and assessment.
With the way you describe subjectivity and opinion, 1+1 = 2 becomes a point of debate about preference, belief and opinion, as there is always some method, mode or spin you can rationalize to claim that it is in fact 0.
I find such debates to be counter-productive because if everything is in fact a matter of opinion, then the only true measure of wether something is good or bad is how many people are willing to buy it. The mob opinion becomes fact, a premise I don't buy into no matter how you spin it.
Bolded point is a strawman not even lightly supported by the evidence, given I used mathematical foundations in my arguments.
I am well aware that it is taught at universities. I teach aspects of cultural and psychological design as a guest lecturer about twice a semester. (That isn't as awesome as it sounds).
The reason I say there is no baseline is because there isn't one. And the arguments among faculty from different schools are just as much fun. THe exception being that they don't talk about what is good, because that's opinion, they talk about what is fast, what is mathematically simple, and what is comprehensible to folks who most often did not retain algebra from high school.
THe only places I see anyone talking about stuff like "good" and "modern" are places online, where someone holds forth on their opinion of what constitutes good and modern. A couple of them even work in game design -- most in video game design (which is where most of my students are focused), but a few in TT design.
I get that you want to throw your hands up and shake your head at me, lol, but the simple truth is that it really does come down to what works best for that person. I have a complex set up for resolving chases and vehicles and mounts that works within 5e -- I can think it is great all I want, and I can argue that it meets several standards of design, but in the end, it is still just a preference of mine, and not everyone will like it, even if I were to adapt it to a different system.
Both of us have been doing this forever -- we know what we like. Pretty sure both of us are nonplussed by the current owners and team, and neither of us are super keen on the way they have structured things. And it is really big, because of the stuff you pointed out previously -- we are part of a generation that had real impact on the game's form, shape, and structure prior to current ownership. That was a built in part of the whole, and there was a massive system that was built around it that allowed us to really dive into things.
good is always a subjective basis. Game, as a whole, is a huge thing -- it is much more effective and useful to speak to the Resolution Mechanics (which iis where all the good arguments are).
Compare D&D 1e to Tunnels and Trolls. To Paranoia. To Vampire, the masquerade. To Pathfinder. To Gurps. "good" is always subjective, because the measure of why it is good is always going to be subjective.
Compare it to Monopoly or Risk or any of the wargames that inspired it. Different structures -- still game design. Valid basis.
Compare the resolution mechanic for THAC0 to the one for an Attack Action in 5e. Resolution mechanics are where the discussion of the professionals is at, and there are benefits to both, but it depends on the nature of the design goals. it isn't so much that it is better, as it is sipler for someone to determine, and swifter for purposes of calculation and play. That could be bad, that could be good, that could be indifferent.
Don't conflate the concept of a game with the resolution mechanics, which can vary within a game -- and be good or bad. I like a realism influenced fantasy game style. That is a nice way of saying I like more crunch. AD&D gave me that love and then ICE just dumped hot coals on it, lol.
But my players don't like as much crunch as me -- now, which is "better"? What you call "modern game design" would generally indicate that less crunch, more universalized resolution mechanics, and speed of play are "better" as a whole -- even though such things make me less inclined to want to play a game and consider it a bad game -- and there are a lot of designers who would agree (just none of them at WotC).
Don't think I am against you -- I am not. I am just pointing out that what passes for arguments about "this game is better than that game" are overly simplistic and have little basis in truth or fact.
Is the PF system of attaching a gemstone to a weapon to improve it better than the D&D system that doesn't allow for improvement? That's a resolution mechanic.
if PF better than D&D? That's a game thing.
Every game has a value and a joy and a purpose. I might think that PF and the thing it forked off of are monstrosities that are unworthy of even uttering, but that's my opinion, and isn't worth a damn thing, nor does it make the game better or worse than D&D.
It is just different.
Because at the end of the day the thing that is important is "do people enjoy it". All other measures fall away. Not how many people, not what, not why, not all that other stuff. Do people enjoy it?
If yes, then it is a good game.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
I find the conversation fascinating, not frustrating and your points interesting, not annoying.
Though at this stage, we have both already made our points, I don't think we are going to change each other's mind and I don't know how to re-affirm my position without repeating what I already said so, I suppose we are at an impasse and have to agree to disagree.
Well despite the ideas above that there is no such thing as a "good design" I continue my quest for a "good game." I am looking for a relatively simple character creation and specialization options and ease of gameplay in a high fantasy setting. I don't need anyone to write my adventures or campaigns as I write everything myself. I am quite adept at bending or breaking rules so the story can move forward and don't mind filling in the rule gaps as needed. I like the risk of PC death; I certainly don't prohibit character death, although it is not common either. Lastly, I don't like class bleed-over; every character cannot do every special attack, cast spells, heal, pick locks, etc. There may be some overlap, but there must be significant separation as well.
I looked a bit at Pathfinder over the last few days, and I do not think that is a good fit for me. My players still struggle with calculating to hit numbers (and we use the 5E system which is pretty easy, IMO. I discarded THACO when I found it. Which is sort of funny, considering several posts above talked about THACO which is indeed, the most bass-akward, convoluted system there is, even though it was better than the system in basic.). They struggle to remember spell durations, AOE, etc. I don't think they could sift through the various decisions of race, skills and level up tech trees.
Haven't heard of GURPS or Dungeon World. I lean towards continuing with my hybrid version. But open to suggestions and will check out the references above. Of course, if something is a close fit, I can always chop it up to make it more to my liking!
Velstitzen
I am a 40 something year old physician who DMs for a group of 40 something year old doctors. We play a hybrid game, mostly based on 2nd edition rules with some homebrew and 5E components.
If your players struggle with calculating hit numbers, GURPS will not (nope, nope, nope with a cherry on top) be their jam. (Actual play might be fine, but they'll melt down in character creation.)
Given your description above, particularly that for a highly restrictive class system, I think your best bet is 5e and rewrite the classes and skills. (Personally, I think the 5e classes are usually fine for giving players a distinctive and unique set of abilities; they just don't have the old "you must have this class in your party" restrictions.)
Of course, there may be games that fit your needs out there, but I think the "strong classes with light mechanics" field is going to be thin.
From your description, despite the above post, everything you don't want IS in 5e D&D and everything you do want, 5e doesn't have any of at all, so you can very safely remove 5e from consideration. It's pretty much the exact opposite of what you are looking for.
GURPS is a pretty heavy system all around, though the core resolution mechanic is quite simple, the point of the games design is specifically to play it RAW as doing otherwise negates the mega focus on character options and core design. I don't think this is your bag.
Dungeon World is not a system at all, Dungeon World is a free-form role-playing game with a resolution mechanic you just as well replace with rock-paper-scissors, from what you are describing here, you are looking for something more robust, I don't think that is going to get the job done for you.
If you like 2nd edition AD&D and you want Ascending Armor Class and elimination of THAC0, I would consider Old School Essentials with the Advanced Fantasy rules upgrade. Its basically a D&D construction kit, you have all of the core races and classes and straightforward D&D mechanics that you are familiar with. Its effectively B/X with advanced D&D classes but balanced for B/X level play.
Another one you might want to look at is Shadow Dark, its a bit more robust than Old School Essentials but uses a lot of the modern evolutions of D&D mechanics without all the clunky junk.
If after looking at these you still feel there isn't enough chrome, Castles & Crusades is a kind of step up and it comes with expansion books that can be used to increase the amount of chrome in the game, so you can have more or less rules, kind of like a lever.
Given that you liked 2e AD&D, it does beg the question, did you use kits and expansion rules like skills & powers? Or did you just use the base game? If its the latter, you might be looking for more chrome than you realize. I'm often surprised how many gamers come to my local table where we play Pathfinder 2e, proclaiming its too rich heavy and then end up spending 3000 dollars on PF2e books. That actually happens a lot. PF2e is a very chromed out system, but its really well structured and after a bit of practice with it, it kind of grows on you. Like.. im like you, I prefer rules light systems, but I do love my PF2e.. its kind of an odd ball compared to the stuff I usually run/play, but it does work really well. It has a learning curve though.
I have to fall in AEDorsay on this one because although you can develop criteria to test and prove elements of game design, those criteria themselves are rooted in subjectivity. This is why it's game design and not game science.
What makes for better design? Simplicity for quick onboarding and easy adjudication, or complexity for deeper engagement and greater depth? You cannot assign objective weights to priorities like this, so design quality is ultimately always going to be subjective. That subjectivity is just buried a little deeper. Of course, there are objective measures within these categories. Added complexity that does not result in added depth is objectively bad design. But then how much added depth justifies a given amount of added complexity? How important is it to you? This can't be answered without opinion creeping in.
When you look at 5e's unprecedented success in expanding the playerbase, you've got to credit elements of the design for prioritizing accessibility and the shallow learning curve. But two editions on, will anyone be playing it the way people are still playing older editions, particularly 3.5 which still has a pretty strong base? I think the lack of complexity in 5e is part of the reason that most folks here are quite open to jumping to the next edition in 2024. There just aren't that many mechanics to engage in, and stuff that doesn't involve mechanics can be ported to the next edition with little effort. So is 5e well designed or not?
And the subjective nature of game design isn't a bad thing. Cultural preferences are always going to be a moving target.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Having actually looked at it briefly (the SRD is on the internets), it's actually even more explicitly D&D-like than I was expecting from my experience with Apocalypse World and other PbtA games. The mechanics are certainly lightweight, but this characterization is inaccurate. It may not be to OP's taste (it is designed from a different philosophical approach to RPGs), but it seems to have at least some of what they want. (Defined classes, light mechanics, and easy to modify.)
Don't mistake what I was pointing out previously with any kind of absolutist position -- the benefit to having a subjective basis is tangible and real.
A "good Game" becomes the one that you enjoy, regardless of design choices or resolution mechanics.
Now, for your list:
IMO (and opinion is what we have for all of those things), and IME, 5e address 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Some people think that Skill systems are simpler than class systems (designers, included), whereas I tend to think of class systems as simpler. There are six ability scores. there are options for specialization in weapons and magic. The resolution mechanics for 5e are for the most part very easy in game play -- ya roll a die, add some numbers. The rule gaps in the game are fairly well known and alternatives to existing rules exist all over the place.
I basically took the game apart and put it back together to give a little more crunch, fill in some gaps, changed systems to work for my table, and while yeah, it's probably enough to fill a standard 250 page rule book, it was all key for the particular setting, because the world doesn't fit the rules, the rules fit the world, and my world only looks like a "typical DND world" on the surface.
THe stuff I hate most about 5e is item number 6, myself. 5e, really, has erased the distinctions between the Core Four (Fighter, Wizard, Rogue, Cleric) that existed in 1e/2e, and so bow all the classes are gishy and while I understand that, it doesn't work well with me. Hence why I created a bunch of new classes, and don't use the existing ones.
Each class has things that only it can do -- and I have 18 classes, and no subclasses. The old favorites are there: Bard, Fighter, Wizard. Rangers more or less got mixed in with Druids, Paladins are once again genuine holy warriors, Clerics are a bit of a twist, and yada yada. Each class was asked for by my players, and we kit bashed them together as a group (and while a big group, it works just as will in a smaller one), and we are still doing light playtesting of them -- currently in Tomb of Annihilation, because it means I can focus on what the classes are able to do and watch power levels.
They are, by and large, more powerful individually than the existing classes, in part because of how we handled a bunch of "unused special abilities". But all of this is to point out a key point here...
You can do this in any game system. While everything I am doing is for the new setting and my player group, I am posting it up on a website that is going to be the Reference Work for the game. I'm currently going through and rewriting and adding in spells (to fit the changed magic system that still uses the same spells), after which class bleed-over will go through and rewrite and add in those "unused special abilities" and then finally I will go back to the final writeups of the classes -- but everything else is done. The world, the peoples, the rule gaps, etc.
And when we tire of this world, I will do it again, lol.
So the issue is how much work do you want to do? for me, doing it in 5e was nearly the easiest changeover in 40 years of gaming to do this kind of work -- the only one easier for me was when I took the old TSR Marvel Advanced rules and did the same thing to them. And the reason I have done two years of playtesting on classes is that not only are all of them completely original, but also because I am lazy as hell and dun wanna write them up (because that means having to add in lore and I just did 350 pages of lore).
TO the original point, is my game balanced? Yes. And I don't even really believe in the concept of balance as it is often talked about in 5e (where it is Rogues should be as tough as fighters who should be able to take anything a mage throws at them, etc -- horsepucky). Each class should have its own strengths, and be measured against its own kind, because that's the whole point of an archetype basis.
sorry, got carried away a sec there.
But rather than wait for them to come around to do it, I just made it myself -- I made the game my own, and in so doing I've sorta screwed Wizards, lol. Because given our schedule, it will be five years before I even really look at the new books, except maybe to snag some item or spell that sounds cool. My monsters are all new, and I have 200 of them. My players were engaged in the whole world creation process, the rules process, the key things -- even suggested some of the films I am using to create the campaigns.
That's all my opinion. I wouldn't say that my rules or my game is for everyone. There are six other DMs in our group, all of whom are running games as well. They don't use all the rules we came up with collectively (rules bend to fit the world), and they don't have worlds that are like mine, nor is mine like theres.
I could tell you to base it off Paranoia rules -- they meet several of those points, but are not fantasy. I could even argue Tunnels and Trolls, lol, or Rabbits and Warrens (now there's a blast from the past).
To some people, GURPS is an "easy, simple system", and who the **** am I to argue with them? I wouldn't say that, lol. But perhaps for them it is easier to understand than a class based system. I loved the old Marvel game, but a lot of people found iit confusing and difficult.
You know what you want. I am not trying to get you to look to 5e. I want you to find a game that works for you. The underlying rules for the White Wolf stuff might work -- but not the setting or the larger structure. I wouldn't suggest any of the old ICE stuff, though.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Not sure what you mean by chrome. I have paper and electronic copies of all the 2E books. I have read through most of them and use pieces of ideas from many of them. There is a lot of fluff in the supplemental books but there are some gems as well. I have read three or four of the 5E books.
I do use kits. Many of these are homebrew but I have borrowed heavily from the supplemental books and the Baldur's gate rulebook, ending up with something that fits our table. I offer a handful or so; again my players don't even read the basic rules so I don't want to get to far off the beaten path. T he kits I have made provide flavor to the game and I have written several for a particular player(s), to fit who they want to play.
Is this what you were getting at?
Velstitzen
I am a 40 something year old physician who DMs for a group of 40 something year old doctors. We play a hybrid game, mostly based on 2nd edition rules with some homebrew and 5E components.
Yeah, chrome is sort of gaming slang for rules detail. For example you can describe an attack as 1e did as a 1d20 roll vs. AC, or you can have something like 4e where you have various unique attack types that you execute, some can be done once per encounter, once per day or others at will, each with its own unique effects and advantages. The latter is chrome, lots more detail to define something.
Kits fall into the arena of chrome... A Fighter can be described as a Barbarian, A Knight a Samurai narratively and you're done.. but kits chrome that out by making each of those unique fighter sub-classes with their own sub-systems and rules.
I think what it boils down to is that some DM's like to tinker, fine-tune a system to their preferences, by cutting rules they don't like, adjusting rules, adding new rules, mixing things in from other systems and ultimately coming up with their own unique take on the game. This style of DMing was extremely common practice in the 1e and 2e days, in fact, I'm not sure it was actually physically possible to play 1e AD&D rules as written. Modern design however has evolved quite a bit, these days you can find systems like Pathfinder 2e for example that cover every conceivable thing you could ever imagine doing, so there really is not much need to tinker, its a very complete game system that can be run rules as written and you will never find anything missing.
The question is wether you want to continue to tinker or are you looking for a robust, ready to go out of the box system that you can simply learn to play and then play as written.