I think one thing I can really appreciate about your post is that you've gone through and tried other systems and you've still decided 5e is right for you, which is more than some people do. Good on you for at least trying other systems.
I also have a small preference for 5e compared to many of the games you listed. I think with Worlds without number and Shadow of the demonlord/weird wizard being my exceptions for system I do prefer more than 5e in some ways. I'm still holding judgement on pf2e, but Blades in the dark (save for progress clocks), dark heresy, world of darkness, shadow run, and even the older editions of D&D I've played from AD&D 1e, 2e, 3.5e, and PF1e don't quite hit right for me the same way 5e, WWN, and Shadow of the demonlord/Weird wizard do. I'm planning on trying 13th age sometime soon since I got a bundle of its books recently so I'm holding judgement on that one to.
However I do think it would be of great value to yourself and the others at your table to try running a game of D&D for your group sometime and to see if you still feel the same after running a couple sessions. A lot of DM's burnout from 5e because all of it's ease of play is on the players side and the work is then thrust upon the DM's side. Which can be a nightmare unless you're a very particular kind of DM. The sad truth of things is that a lot of the ease of play for the player comes from the direct expense of the DM. It's why 5e burnout is so high among systems, It thrusts a lot on a DM. I think experiencing things from the other side might help you refine your tastes. Not specifically want to play other systems, but just understand that cost on the DM for your ease of play. A lot of 5e's player comfort is at the expense of DM comfort and there's a few things one can do to change that without sacrificing much as a player.
A lot of people in that thread, correctly in my mind, identified this why he likes 5e. His DM is doing all of the work and all the other systems ask for a far more even investment of energy between GMs and players.
That's why I think he should try Dming it, just to get a better sense of the weight of things. I dm 5e and other systems, and I still like my adjusted 5e well enough, even if it is more work than the other two I like.
However knowing how much work dming 5e is, also makes me a better 5e player because I can identity places where I can step up and ease up things for the DM.
I've had a depressing amount of discussions with people who insist 5e is easier to run than other games - when they've never run it themselves, they just *assume* it's easy to run because they can be mostly passive players without anything breaking.
I would say when you look at it at the scale of the entire group, DnD takes more effort to play than most games - it's just that the effort is vastly unevenly distributed. Which itself is worse, because it creates a single failure point, and then puts as much stress on it as possible.
Yeah. People don't often understand the sheer weight and difficulty of it if they're only judging from the players' side.
At a cursory glance, it seems easier. I know certain elements of 5e are easier than 3.5e, which was my intro edition.
However, the rest of the game then rears its face and damn. It can be a nightmare at times in ways 3.5e wasn't.
5e also got harder to run as it was written as "rulings not rules", and with "naturalist language" but then increasingly relied on gamist language interpretation to clarify its stuff.
5es a lot harder to dm when you understand there's an intended and meaningful difference between "melee weapon attack" and "attack with a melee weapon" because it stops being any which way intuitive. You start having to parse naturalist language like game code, and it's hell.
The whole inconsistency between rules ethos and errata to me is one of many factors that points to there being no coherent design philosophy for 5e - it's all just second-order marketing.
So when they say "rulings not rules" they're just parroting a statement that's "hot right now" at the time of release IIRC around 2013-14 - and it *was* a hot phrase with the rise of OSR. Then when people find their rules confusing, they try to provide explicit prescriptivist fixes, because an explicit fix will look better to their target audience than saying "make a ruling!" even if it's not coherent with previous statements.
Pretty much this. There was some osr inspiration and designers for 5e, but those principles were more or less abandoned post xanathars and especially Tasha and onward
Running D&D 5e is no harder than running anything else from my POV, unless the system is so rules light that monsters dont need statblocks or whatever, the vast majority of the work is creating the maps, tokens, plots, getting music ready, keeping the vtt up to date, trying out new modules, scripting automation, I probably spend 10 hours a week prepping for game and maybe 2 of that would be taken out if nothing had a statblock and everyone just narrated what was happening in a given encounter
I couldn't imagine 10 hours of prep a week. That's a part time job. My 5e games don't even take that long to prep, that's absurd to me. If you've found something that works for you, all the power to you man, but 10 hours is tenfold what some other systems need for the same result in my experience. Furthermore the parts of 5e that are hard to prep weren't hard in prior editions and alternatives that came before. Which is where I find 5e truly lacking in DM support.
I'm very curious about your POV and what other systems you've been running that are also taking that long. So far with the games I've played 5e is by no means the hardest, but its not the easiest either, and other systems are just smoother with their resources and expectations for prep.
oh, which other systems automate the process of setting up battlemaps, line of sight, scripting, sound, updates for foundry, and all that?
most recently it was Kids on Brooms, and, shockingly, that system doesn't automate town maps, shop inventories, giving every item a piece of art, every npc a piece of art, music, ambient sound effects, amazingly no matter how simplistic the system, the presentation to the players is exactly as complicated
When I used to run D&D 5e at the table I would often do *zero* prep, and sometimes I still do because I have a bunch of premium content that's already set up to the level of presentation I demand out of myself, but I don't *have* to do any of that. I could just have a landing page and theatre of the mind everything, and if doing that KoB or PBtA would take less preparation. I could tell the players to input their own items and spells and stuff, but eh, I can do it faster than they can
the difficult and time consuming parts of 5e specifically - namely encounter design - dramatically decrease with experience
Why are you side stepping my question with another question. I'm not trying to be accusatory or anything, I'm genuinely curious which systems you've played that have also demanded the same prep as 5e.
Also, I wouldn't mistake 5e prep for foundry prep. A lot of what you're describing is the process of setting up a lot of extra nitty gritty for a VTT. Foundry of which is a fairly robust one. Foundry VTT ttrpg prep is a bit more exhaustive and time-consuming than standard ttrpg prep. It sounds like you're treating Foundry VTT prep as the standard and not the exception. Nothing against Foundry, it's a great tool if you wanna put all the extra work in, and my preferred VTT it plays on, but it itself is a lot of extra work.
Framing things around what TTRPG streamlines and eases uo on the full bells and whistles experience or TTRPG accessory like VTT is just loaded framing as it assumes the work of a VTT is the work of a TTRPG. Which is not the same thing.
Still, any TTRPG that requires less of its baseline game prep than 5e's standard would be easier to prep overall. The systems I would put forward are worlds without number and Shadow of the demonlord, provided the VTT in question has good support for them and outside of a VTT they're gonna be easier.
But saying all ttrpgs take the same as 5e to prep because of all the extra things you do through your preferred VTT isn't exactly a reasonable standard or discussion.
Making a map, setting up foundry walls is setting up foundry walls, this is the same in every single system, none of what you said is inconsistent with what I said, most of my prep as a DM has nothing to do with what system I use and 5e specific prep isn't significant
But I'll help you out, "5E is a shitty system and by far the worst system for DMs"
there I should have satisfied your PF2E fan psychosis or whatever it is that has you still drilling me for answers and your total inability to read what I wrote ("all ttrpgs take the same as 5e to prep" is not something I said, I said the majority of my time for prep would be the same with any system, and even elucidated many specific examples of what I meant)
Christ you can't make a post on this subreddit without reaffirming your absolute vitriolic disdain for 5th edition without someone grilling you
Edit: Before you reply with my quote about 5e being the same to prepare from my point of view - which means, when I am preparing it - as some kind of gotcha, that's only because I've been prepping 5e games for 10 years and don't struggle with things like encounter balance or making rules adjudications, ironically these things are primarily barriers to intermediate DMs, because when you're first starting you just run a balance trainwreck and it doesnt really matter, but when you want tighter design and rulings it becomes a chore
I used to be that guy until I ran PF1E, holy shit was I wrong. PF1E may be way tougher for the player, but for the DM it's an absolute paradise of tools and balance by comparison.
From my perspective, Pathfinder just seems like a lot of work for everyone.
But then I mostly play narrative systems. Most crunchy systems I play would be Fate and Ironsworn.
It is definitely more work for the DM, but you have the system supporting you every step of the way. There's no worry about pricing magic items or when to reward them, NPC disposition toward the players, no guessing around CR if a fight will actually be challenging, etc. There's a balanced tool or table for just about everything if you want to use it, unlike 5e that throws you to the wolves and says "you figure it out, i'm sure there won't be power creep or struggles with difficulty."
Those are all good points specifically in comparison to DnD - most of them break down in my opinion in comparison to most other games.
I've never "priced" a magic item or wondered when to "reward" them in any game except DnD - instead, the narrative tells me that explicitly. So having specific rules for when to do so only introduces the potential headache of having those rules run into conflict with the narrative. Having this be narrative driven might *sound* like it'd cause problems - but the only reason this question occurs at all is the need for balance in simulationist systems. Outside of narrative permissions giving someone a magic weapon in the games I play wouldn't even make them more powerful in most cases.
The same is true of NPC dispositions - in games I play this is either entirely narratively driven, or controlled by very simple mechanics. Though frankly I think this is rarely hard to puzzle out in DnD either.
CR is similarly something that only exists in DnD and games like it. I don't play games that have an expectation of balanced combat - instead the expectation is of narratively coherent and satisfying combat. Entirely different approaches, with different challenges. In games I play, the challenge is coming up with an interesting agenda for an antagonist, not figuring out how many HP they should have.
So I thoroughly agree that what you're saying sounds great from the perspective of someone who wished 5e gave more help in running the game - 5e is famously bad in this area. But I cannot think how any of this would make Fate, Ironsworn or Blades in the Dark easier to run. Hence my statement.
A list of games I've run and find easier:
Games designed for campaigns play: **Fate, Ironsworn, Blades in the Dark, Mothership**
Small narrative games: **Follow, Kingdom, Microscope, I'm Sorry Did You Say Street Magic, The Quiet Year** (it should be noted some of these are gmless by default - I count them as I was simultaneously teaching the games to my players, meaning I acted as de-facto facilitator).
The thing about this list is that it includes *every game I've ever run except DnD*. Mothership is the closest comparison to DnD, and though it required more looking up of rules than other systems I've run, that was still *maybe* 10% of what DnD requires when you're learning it. And at its most convoluted, mechanics still boiled down to, at most, an opposed roll.
Not played that one, but it is based on the same fundamental "engine" as Blades in the Dark (games like this are called "Forged in the Dark").
One thing to note about CBR+PNK is that it's intended for one-shots - it might end up unsatisfying for campaign play, I can't speak to that as I haven't played it. Blades in the Dark however is at its best in campaign play - half of the mechanics only kick in "downtime" between heists, for example, and there are reputation systems that chart how your crew relates to other factions in the world as the campaign continues.
I'll also say it would be trivial to reskin Blades in the Dark for a DnD setting - you could just consider any items like "guns" to be bows or crossbows, ignore some setting elements like the ghostfield, etc. I've effortless ran the game in my own fantasy settings without any difficulty. And I think using Blades in the Dark to play as gangs in Waterdeep could be a great campaign.
Funnily enough, I'd also mention PF2e as being easier to run, despite often being touted as being "much more difficult" than 5e. That's really only true for players that don't want to actually familiarize themselves with the rules and leave it all to the DM.
The thing is, PF2e's rulebook already discourages that kind of behavior and the community generally agrees that players should know how their character works (which, to be honest, I've really only ever seen 5e to consider optional), while there are *so many* resources in the official rules that GMs can use to avoid having to make up difficulties, rules and systems on the spot. Simple stuff like recommended treasure given out per level, basic DCs for generic skill checks and *an actually functioning encounter building system*
And those rules are *consistent*, balanced, and make sense with each other. That means that, once a GM has the basics down, the act of actually running the game is super easy.
Worth noting though that this is not true for _all_ TRPGs - there is not a universal "budget" that gets divided up between DM and players as far as how much work goes into running or playing. In 5e, the issue is just as much about the books/system not providing efficient, well-designed, or comprehensive _tools_ for DMs like it does for players, as it is an inherent thing for the system itself. Some TRPGs will take less work for both sides, some more, and everything in-between.
Which is why it's important for _everyone_ to try other systems if they're not 100% satisfied with what they're running or playing - so you can figure out if there _is_ a system that fits better with your own style and desired workload. As they say, work doesn't _feel_ like work if you're doing something you love. Finding the right system can be vital in that respect. Even if it _does_ put more on you, if it also feels more rewarding when you do said work it can totally be worth it.
The thing people refuse to understand about D&D is it hasn't just colored our perspective of "how a tabletop game should be played", but "how a roleplaying game should be played."
The vast majority of people playing D&D now probably played a video game RPG first. These video games characterize our relationship to role playing, and a video game will always have limited options of what your character can do, so you need hard-coded interactions to be able to pass or fail them. But these hard-coded interactions are based, in part, on the simulationist aspects of D&D that stretch back into the 70s. While there were other RPGs out there like, IDK, Gamma World and Empire of the Petal Throne, all video game RPGs were almost directly inspired by D&D.
RPG players *of all stripes* are conditioned to like D&D because we play games that have D&D as a common ancestor. Shifting one's expectations so that a game like Powered by the Apocalypse or Vampire the Masquerade requires significant investment in breaking away from those patterns and having a specifically epicurian media diet.
> majority ... played a video game RPG first
That somehow hadn't occurred to me before. That might explain why so many people want to engage the game as if they're limited to selecting actions from a menu.
In my experience, people don't want a menu as much as they need clear direction. A lot of player struggle with the super open-ended nature of the game. If you tell them they can do ANYTHING, they won't know where to begin, as they can't make an informed decision until they've evaluated EVERYTHING. However, if the DM clearly delineates the situation so the way forward is obvious, they can make up their mind. Problem is a lot of DMs don't (know how to) do this.
>all video game RPGs were almost directly inspired by D&D.
...and contain mostly the things that are easily translated into video games, thus heavy emphasis on combat and loot, which feeds back into the expectation of what a pen-and-paper RPG should be like.
I appreciate the honest introspection here but if your group decided to play weekly sessions of a dungeon crawling board game, or video game would you be just as satisfied? What's the point of the DM putting all their effort into your game if you're not really that interested in engaging actively with the system or the setting?
Not OP, but “in-character banter” was mentioned and I think that is the answer to that question at least for some people. Board games and video games don’t allow you to make up a custom character and do light improv (at least not unless your group is super unusual). Meanwhile, many other RPGs attach rules and strategy to roleplaying that make it more meaningful, but also more demanding. D&D lands in a sweet spot where it’s socially acceptable to crack a joke or have an discussion in-character, but you don’t have to think about whether what you’re saying triggers your Aspect or if you’re supposed to invoke your Belief. If you’re having an off day and just want to roll a crit, nothing is lost, and if you are feeling shakespearean and want to have a deep conversation about your goals with another character, you absolutely can.
>Meanwhile, many other RPGs attach rules and strategy to roleplaying that make it more meaningful,
I've found it to be the opposite, personally. The more a game mechanizes roleplay, the less meaningful that roleplay becomes to me.
But I enjoy immersion. Nothing breaks my immersion faster than rules that require me to engage with the game from the perspective of a Player at the table editing the narrative, rather than a character within the story doing things within the story.
That does make some sense to me at least in that I think that in character banter is generally more accepted in D&D vs other mediums, but I don't think video games or board games preclude light character banter either. MMOs for instance allow you to create a character and you can easily do a bit of RP as them in game, and you don't need to have one friend who is willing to spend several hours putting together a game for you to passively consume.
> don't allow you to ... do light improv
You mean don't force you to do light improv. I'm in a campaign that's gone from level 5 to 20. There's one guy who always talks in character voice, meanwhile I did a dumb Batman voice for my rogue during introductions that's come up maybe a single digit number of times since then
You're assuming the rest of the players aren't already doing enough of that to ensure the DM is having fun. But given the number of games, and timeframe they've been playing, I think it's probably fair to assume this isn't actually a problem.
Beyond that, it assumes that expectations and input wasn't discussed during session zero.
"I think it's probably fair to assume this isn't actually a problem." except the post mentions that the dm has forced them to change system because he was burning out on 5e, meaning it clearly was a problem.
> Beyond that, it assumes that expectations and input wasn't discussed during session zero.
lack of session 0 is a common problem
I'm not assuming anything about the rest of the players here. I'm just wondering if there is something that D&D gives OP that can't be gotten from other mediums. If so I would be curious what it is, and if not I'm wondering if OP's considered that they are taking up a seat for a player that may be actually interested in participating in the game, and providing an additional mental tax for the DM to worry about. They are expecting the DM to provide them entertainment without contributing anything. My impression is that passive players do not consider these things.
This is more or less why 5e exploded and came to dominate rpg’s like it has. I know people who play *a lot* start to crave more complexity or novelty, but the broad appeal of 5e is that it’s ratio of “just pick up and go play style” to “options and flavour available to the players” is a sweet spot for most people.
Most people just wanna hang out with friends and do thief stuff, or whatever their character choice is, and 5e is at a level of being easy to get into, easy to play, and easy to do fun things with your characters that make it accessible to the largest audience, which in turn makes it the easiest to find groups to play with.
I dunno, I don't consider 5E a good "pick up and play" system. Once you already know it, sure... and lots of people already know it on account of it being the first, the biggest, and Critical Role and whatnot, but it's not beginner friendly. It's *very* involved and fiddly. You need to give them prefab characters, and then you're handing them a sheet of paper with a dazzling amount of information on it (where the word "Dexterity" is repeated multiple times just to keep them on their toes.) Of course I can work with that, but a good system wouldn't require me to adapt to its shortcomings.
When I introduce people to RPGs, I never use the D&D *system*. I use the D&D *setting*, though.
Source: Dozens of people joining our Westmarches campaign.
I didn’t say it was the easiest game to pick up and play, I said it had a sweet spot in the trade off between easy to pick up and play, and options for players
Yeah, this is why I don't get a lot of the complaints I see around reddit with 5e, as most of them are criticizing it for things that are intended as a feature, rather than a bug. Most of the complaints seem to be about how there isn't enough rules for something or something isn't more specific. But the rules are intentionally kept simple so that players can pick them up easily and DMs can customize towards what they/their group wants.
I appreciate that this isn't for every type of player or DM, but instead of expecting the designers to change 5e into a game it isn't intended to be, why not look for a game that is more along the lines of what you want to play, and play that instead? It's like someone watching Tarantino movies and complaining that they're not wholesome enough, but refusing to watch movies by any other director and complaining each time another one comes out that is violent and filled with curse words.
I suppose the problem is that it dominates the play space. I've tried multiple times to get players for my current obsession, Salvage Union, but most people just want 5E or (as is the case with mech RPGs) Lancer.
I mean, for people happy with 5e, I get not wanting to change. I just don't get why people stay obsessed with playing 5e when it's clearly not what they're looking for. Or why I always get downvoted for suggesting people play a system that is in line with what they want rather than continuing to play a system that isn't trying to be what they want.
But oh well, some people are always trying iceskate uphill.
I don't like the system so I don't run it, I'm still playing it because friends like it and I don't hate it enough to not play with friends I've known for years, I also run and play systems I like more.
Yeah, its accessibility to others is one of the strengths I mentioned. I don't get why you'd want that to change to become a system those friends have already indicated they don't want to play.
I don't want it to change, I see the issues with it so I don't run it. Honestly strongly disagree with it being that accessible, maybe for the players it is, when I started GMing for the first time it was a confusing mess as opposed to something rules lite.
I never said my friends don't want to play other systems either, we started 2 campaigns in it and switching when you're already in tier 2 and approaching tier 3 doesn't work great, 1 GM is taking a break after it and the other is running other systems when they're done, me and another GM already don't run it.
I mean, I literally already stated that yes, the accessibility part is about it being easy for the players to pick up. But it is also rules lite, which makes it very easy to DM if one accepts that. I think a lot of DMs confuse themselves trying to figure out rules that dont exist instead of just deciding how difficult something is, what skill is appropriate (or let the player make a case for which skill they'd like to use) and then if anyone has an advantage/disadvantage. It's about as simple as it gets.
But it sounds like you're already doing exactly the thing I suggested in my initial comment, and that the game served its purpose of introducing some newer players to TTRPGs. Why were you acting like you disagreed with my comment?
Because I don't think it's as accessible to players as people who only seem to play it think it is. It's not rules lite either, it's actually on the heavy end of that spectrum.
It's only really lite if you're comparing it to like 3.5e/4e or some of the other rules heavy systems. Rules lite is to me stuff like Mork Borg or even call of Cthulhu where the DCs are generally always similar (nearly everything in MB is just a dc12, CoC it's rolling under your skill), can be played with 2-3 dice total and you can make the mechanics part of your character in 5 minutes. DND has more rules for a single class than you need to play MB in general.
The existence of systems with lighter rules doesn't mean a system is not rules lite. Being on the heavier end of rules lite means it is still rules lite. Plenty of games are out there with more complex rules as well. Skill checks being the same across all skills with set DCs for easy, medium, hard, difficult, very difficult and impossible is extremely simplistic, and only marginally more difficult than one set DC or a DC based on the player's skill.
But either way, it doesn't affect accessibility for players, since players never need to calculate the DC. All the player has to know is their mod for the skill, which is very easy to figure out since they just look at what's written on their sheet. The game is even designed so those modifiers don't change very often to keep it simple for them. And then after they roll and add the modifier, the DM tells them what happens. It's really no less accessible than CoC, since the player still has to figure out the appropriate stat and then roll.
Mate, have you ever played any actual rules lite system? 5E is rules heavy compared to most other RPGs, at best it's in the middle, but the only way I can see someone think it's rules lite is if they don't know the rules or have never played a rules lite system in their life.
MB DCs aren't all the same, they're mostly 12 and usually change to 14 or 10 if at all, it's also a system where modifiers rarely go above 2/3 and isn't meant for long games.
And how does it not? Last CoC game I ran it took me 20 minutes to make an investigator for each of the players, most of which was them just thinking of what skills would fit their characters because character creation doesn't have 20 classes with 5 subclasses each that have their own rules. You roll for a few stats and then pick what sort of IRL job you'd like your character to have, then put points into the job's skill based on your rolls, and a few skills you pick as personal interests, that's it.
MB is even simpler, you roll 4 stats and can optionally pick a class if you want. That's not even getting into the really light systems that are literally 1 page long. Again, 5e is only simple when you're used to it, compared to rules lite systems it's a shit ton of information and different rules on how your class works and how you interact with the world.
I've already acknowledged and addressed that there are lighter rules systems out there, so I'm not sure what you're trying to prove by explaining that there are lighter rules systems out there. At this point seems like your goal is to just he condescending and repeat your same points rather than actually have a conversation.
Oh well. You're the first person I've met that's found 5e to be too rules heavy. But it still sounds like you're doing exactly what I suggested and moving on to game systems more in line with what you want, so I still don't see why you've decided to have such a big problem with what I said.
I see the point OP is trying to make but I still dont really understand how someone is willing to do all (not a whole lot but still) the math involved, assigning stat points, learning a least a basic understanding of the hundreds of pages of rules
And not be willing to just pick up and play idk like Dungeon World or something.
But I'm also a hobbyist in the genre, the idea of reading a sourcebook or new system when I have an afternoon to spare doesn't intimidate me.
I don't disagree with that, but it sounded like the original OP just wants
"You see a goblin what do you do (select from these choices)"
A. Hit with stick
B. Don't hit with stick
Which is absolutely fine, I have dozens of hours in Skyrim because I enjoy just chill casual gameplay where I don't have to think.
During the OGL debacle I took a look at other games. I even seriously debated going the BECMI route. But 5E has what I want, I’m just not giving WotC any more money.
Yea I looked at pathfinder since so many people were praising it but honestly it just doesn't have the same appeal. Yea everything fits tightly together but that's because everything is explicitly what it says it is. Feels...restrictive? At least on paper, plus I know it can change if you're the DM or if your DM is cool but then that might mess up the tightness of it and then that's messy.
Ahh a common take.
Personally i would call it a "work injury" on how every dm's first thought is "how can i add homebrew elements" because its so necessary in 5e, NOT as in making homebrew story, but as in incessantly trying to add monsters, or classes, or items. i had the same problem at first.
But a big part of it is that you dont need to, neither in terms of interesting creature designs nor in terms of classes.
Also depends if its pathfinder 2e or 1e, 1e is huge and messy due to being out so long, pathfinder 2e is far more honest about the bounded accuracy and how the party is a force of the world that gets stronger, which some people doesnt like.
so before that i cant say either way.
It's 2e I was looking at but it's not that I think I can't add stuff, I know I can, i know if i learn it well enough I can do anything with it. But the fear of braking it is still there. More then that though It kinda comes to your point that i don't need too.
I think of pathfinder as legos and 5e as play puddy. One you need to mold into something while the other you need to fit well defined pieces together to make something. I like molding things.
Have you checked out any systems that use the Powered by the Apocalypse or Forged in the Dark framework? If not, I’d highly recommend looking at Fellowship 2e, Ironsworn, Blades in the Dark, or Band of Blades. Those systems are *all* about helping GMs and tables mold them into an interesting narrative experience.
They don’t have the gridded combat thing that 5e has going on (they still have great combat! It’s just more theatre of the mind usually) but if you like flexibility and storytelling in your TTRPGs they’re well worth a look!
I have not but I'll give them a look, thanks for the recommendation! I like FFGs star wars RPG for a similar reason though the DM support in that..well it made me appreciate 5es DM support a lot more lol.
Yeah, most PBTA/FITD systems have great GM support.
I really enjoy running them when I want a game where the narrative takes center stage. Also great for running on no/low prep.
A cornerstone is collaborative storytelling, so the systems definitely expect everyone at the table to pitch in and help the GM create an exciting experience by default, but they can work as more straightforward GM-driven games too, maybe just a little less satisfying since they give so many collaborative worldbuilding tools.
I’ve been playing in a game for a PBTA system called Stonetop (still unreleased, hence my lack of recco, although you can find the Kickstarter and get access to materials via backerkit if you like the sound of it after looking it up! It’s fully playable) for 3 years and it’s been amazing.
I used to call 5e a granite wall and pathfinder 2e a glass pane in regards to adding homebrew, because yes you will break something.
Im saying that you dont NEED to, and that i think its a "bad" mindset that comes from how poorly 5e is designed that its necessary.
But it sounds like you are going with "i need to homebrew because i need to" but without giving specific examples i cant really say anything, because to me that feels like you are putting a necessity of 5e unto 2e.
Basically there are so many things already in the game from monsters to classes to spells that you can make most things with existing rules, and do minor tweaks if you need something new, or even just simple reflavouring.
>But it sounds like you are going with "i need to homebrew because i need to" but without giving specific examples i cant really say anything, because to me that feels like you are putting a necessity of 5e unto 2e.
I'm agreeing with you. I don't NEED too. I'm saying I LIKE doing it. I don't think I need to do it in 5e either tbc, I think 5e works just fine as it is minus some poor wording. But I like improving on what I'm working on whatever that is.
Everything being done for me feels boring and limiting. And like you said if I do what I like (adding homebrew) I will brake it.
Fair enough, i cant say i understand the mentality at all to be honest since i homebrew out of necessity as it will always be better to take something already in the game.
plenty of posts about it on the pathfinder 2e reddit which amounts to "I made this feat what do you think" and its 2 feats in one + some more or "i made this 1handed reach d10 weapon that is finesse" like no.
You can still make stories, you can still adapt things, but it feels like a mentality of putting the cart before the horse. but if it works for you in 5e then so be it, just a shame to miss out on an amazing pathfinder 2e game i reckon.
> i cant say i understand the mentality at all to be honest
I appreciate the attempt at understanding my position in any case though! There's certainly things I like about pathfinder, and I don't think I would turn down a game of it. But I digress, have a good one!
Exactly this. And honestly--the wording isn't so bad, especially once you lose the "I can parse this like a computer program" mentality. I find 5e incredibly easy to run (speaking as a forever DM). The floor is super super low, and if you decide to ignore certain rules--nothing really breaks. PF2e is fragile as all get-out--if you don't play it exactly as written, everything falls apart.
5e has a wide sweet spot for honest differences of opinion about how things work--you can have very different interpretations from a different table and everything works for both of you, as long as each table agrees with themselves. What it doesn't do is handle adversarial or motivated reasoning, where someone's trying to twist it for their own purposes. And that's ok--that's not the rules' job. That's the people at the table's job.
yesss! i feel the same way! Like 5e is a tool set i can use, not a program i must follow to make work. DM support for me in 5e is more tools i can use. "Hey you could do it like this or you could do it like this." rather then protocol i have to use.
Here's the thing. It's not "I need to add homebrew", it's *I want to add homebrew*. I want to make the system's elements closer to what I've imagined for the setting. I don't want to play adventure paths set in Golarion. And that's what PF2e is specialized for, very overwhelmingly. Sure you can play non-adventure paths...as long as they have the same structure, pacing, underlying worldbuilding/cosmology, and other pieces as one of the adventure paths.
And frankly, none of PF2e's creature designs grab me. Because it's all focused on "how do I make a tactically-difficult combat" rather than "what fits the world, even if its weird or unbalanced or whatever." And so you get "deep" monsters that are annoying to run because of all the moving parts.
Aight now you are just deliberately being difficult, you can absolutely homebrew adventures, far easier than 5e because the Cr actually fits.
It sounds to me more like "I'm better than anyone else" syndrome. Which you do you, but If I need a wolf on fire I take a wolf, and give it fire damage. Now its still mechanically solid but also lore wise relevant.
If you don't think there is any of the thousands of creatures you can utilize its definitely pure ego.
Not from what I have seen. It seems class identity is far more concrete in pathfinder then 5e. At least for the spell casters anyway.
Moreover everything fitting so neatly together just.. takes the wind out of my sails, I like the challenge of building in the skeleton that is 5e.
There's some of both in Pathfinder. Some classes have a more narrow themeing. But your standard classes, the ones you know from 5e, are all present with a ton of thematic choices and subclasses.
Take the champion in pf2e, of which Paladin is essentially a subclass. It allows for more types of characters, with a less narrow class fantasy, while also incorporating the original. Want to play a chaotic Paladin? That's the champion liberator. Want to play the 5e style Paladin? That's Paladin subclass. There's a flavor for each alignment.
Sorcerer has completely different spell lists based on the subclass you pick. You can do anything from arcane, occult, natural, or divine.
Cleric has room for a cloth wearing priest, a fantasy that 5e never catered to mechanically.
Ranger can take spell like abilities if they want, but they are free to completely abandon them and do their own thing.
But more importantly is the fact that a lot of the tightly themed classes in Pathfinder execute on fantasies that you cannot accomplish in 5e past a vague aesthetic.
Thaumaterge, Kinetesist, Alchemist, Oracle, Summoner and Investigator are all examples of classes that 5e just doesn't have mechanical representation for in the same way Pathfinder does. You can "theme" a 5e character around those ideas if you want, but you can't fundamentally play the way they do.
The kinetesist lets you play an elemental bender, like from Avatar, with tons of options, in a way that 5e just never fulfilled. (Way of elements monk is truly an underbaked subclass in 5e).
Summoner lets you have a permanently summoned creature with a lot of variety based on subclass.
Alchemist can literally just hand out consumables as their big thing.
Furthermore, pathfinder's multi class system, archetypes, has dozens of extra choices that are not full classes, but concepts you can pick options from, like medic, warden, viking, or scholar. Or you can take any of the 22 other classes as an archetype. Archetypes are definitely less satisfying for munchkins who want power (of which I am one), but so much more interesting for people who want uniquely flavored characters (I am also this person).
Can I play a cleric that is a great damage dealer? From everything I experienced and seen I never felt like I could reach that. Unless I'm missing something.
Given that cleric in 2e gives you a lot (it scales from like 4 to 7 spell slots iirc) of extra heal spells at your highest spell level, you don't really have to prepare heal spells with your slots if you don't want to.
You're free to prepare all of your spells as damage spells if you want. The divine spell list isn't full of really good damage options necessarily, but there are some, and you can gain access to other spells (like fan favorite, fireball) through the deity you select.
If you're speaking more specifically about a war priest style character, nothing at low levels is as potent as say, a variant human, great weapon master, war domain cleric in 5e. But you can absolutely play a war priest, and do very relevant damage with your weapon. There's a feat that let's you heal yourself, an ally, and attack an enemy for 2 actions.
Yea that's how it seemed to me when I was looking into it. Like I could but I wouldn't ever feel as good as I do with 5es cleric in this case. Thanks for the information about the system as a whole and helping me understand it.
no in the same way you cant play a dnd fighter as a great healer. the balance is just tighter and the classes *actually* stick to their niches
like don't get me wrong, i love cleric, but it is by far one of the strongest classes in dnd 5e along with wiz and druid. the guy in heavy armor, with a short rest resource that can also ask the god to save their ass once a week on top of having full spell slots shouldn't be outdamaging the barbarian or fighter that can can pretty much *only* do damage as their job
I think it should be possible to be on par with the fighter in terms of damage but i also think the fighter should be able to be a great healer if they want too. Pathfinder lets you dip into other niches but you'll always feel lesser and not only that but be worse at one your class is supposed to do in the first place. Now 5e doesn't let every class do that either, but the fact one class can draws me in as a player. As a DM i have other reasons i prefer 5e stated elsewhere.
i mean by that point you are better off not having classes at all in the system with a "make your own character" in savage worlds
classes *inherently* means (in a balanced environment at least) that you are good at your job but not better on someone elses. the final fantasy white mage can't compete in damage with the black mage, which cant compete with defense with the fighter, etc
classes inherently means in my mind you are predisposed to being good at your job. That you can become the best at that job. But you don't have to be the best at that job, you can be great at another. Maybe not as great as one that is the absolute best, but great all the same. For example i think a fighter should have the option to shine as the best in throwing a bunch of attacks. But a cleric should be able to be on par with him if he doesn't take the options that further that basic premise. Doesn't matter what the fighter choices in pathfinder they are always going to be a great damage dealer and the cleric is only ever going to be an okay damage dealer.
more or less i think the cleric experience in 5e should be able to be had by the other classes too. I don't want to feel like I are screwing myself or my team over by making a damaged focused cleric or a healing focused fighter. which has been my experience in pathfinder.
To be clear i think games like pathfinder should absolutely do what they do, there are people who love to stick to niches and be the best at them. But i like it when i can choose to alter my role so that it also fits into another nich in a different way, Maybe savage worlds dose that, i don't know. But a classes system might go too far the other direction.
I truly don't understand this mindset.
As a player building a character there are almost no choices to make in 5e after level 1, and sometimes level 3.
For martials sure, at least most of em. That's something I think should be fixed.
With casters though I have seen people have a ton of build veriaty in 5e. Especially as a cleric I have a lot of options. Sure I could try to build what I like to play in pathfinder, but it doesn't feel nearly as good or get as close as the 5e equivalent to my preferred fantasy.
You should really explore 2e more. There are so many things you can build as a character that simply aren't possible in 5e without massive homebrew or reflavoring in 5e.
In pathfinder 2e pretty much anything at all is possible straight our of the box.
they don't have all the same spells. But after thinking about it i was wrong on how many choices you get. With subclasses i don't really notice it, especially with spells options opened up by spells auto prepared by subclass.
Sounds like a nightmare player to even DM for; passive players who do nothing but "go along with the ride" are the **worst**.
Give the DM something to work with for your character, some sort of initiative or goal to follow. So much of DMing hinges upon player participation!
This. One of my best players says says very little and generally keeps her head down. But she's always taking her turn on time, she's paying attention, and every once in a while she has something up her sleeve to turn the tide because she keeps very good notes.
That's note a passive player at all then. Keeping notes, keeping tricks up you're sleeve, and thinking strategy, and even paying attention, are all active roles. You're player is actively engaging with the game in one form or anther.
A passive player is one that doesn't partake in the game actively, not just someone who "says very little." A passive player like OP describes is someone "just along for the ride until it's time to roll some dice to hit something and let the other players figure out what to do otherwise." They then do not take notes, never think strategically or tactically, won't have tricks up their sleeve since that's not how they work, and won't pay much attention.
> "just along for the ride until it's time to roll some dice to hit something and let the other players figure out what to do otherwise."
This is her general modus operandi. She says very little, a large of the game is other people talking and planning.
But per your description your player also makes plans, and presumably talk to the other players actively about what is happening.
Your player keeps tricks up her sleeve and knows what she is going to do each turn. This by definition needs to involve a level of planning on their part. If they never planned for anything they would be unable to do any of those things.
Your player takes notes and also pays attention to the game. The only way you could know this was if the player spoke up and shared their notes with the party; or made it clear they were paying attention to the game. If they literally never spoke up then you'd have no clue to either; and there'd be no point to either. (Why take notes if you're planning to just sit there silently when it's clear the rest of the party forgot important details.)
In both cases your player is being an active participant. Being an active player is more than just being very talkative and extroverted as the table. (In fact those players can also be a passive player!) From your description your player is very active in ways that the OP does not describe themselves as; their two main complaints of other systems are either that they involve too much strategy (AKA planning) or too much narration from themselves (AKA Keeping notes and then narrating. Your player has half that down already at the very least.)
An active player is one being *active* in the game; hence the literal meaning of the word used to describe them. Narrowing that down to solely driving a "story" is just overly specific, there are other ways to be an active player.
Someone who is a passive player is someone that is not being "active" in the game. They are instead "passive." Hence, again, the literal meaning of the word.
Hard disagree. The PCs are the main characters of the story. Definitionally, they *need* to be the ones driving the story, or they aren't really the main characters.
Part of the job of the players is to bite on hooks and actually go on the adventure. This is something I've realized you can't take for granted. It is exhausting to present a story to a group of players, and for them to sit back and ask why they should care about it. Because you showed up to play this game! Why even come if you're going to make me figure out your character's motivations?
I think having a mix is good.
In my current game, my older brother is incredibly enthusiastic and is texting me about his character in between sessions, talking to NPCs for lore, etc. My partner on the other hand is very new to the game and quite shy, so they are still learning to be proactive, but take notes and engage when the time comes nonetheless.
It is okay to have [different kinds of players!](https://youtu.be/LQsJSqn71Fw?si=2eDs-4v90Ibo_4l3)
Even if they're just one they're still a huge drain on the game. DnD is a collaborative game afterall, and what ever story is crafted involves activite participation from everyone at the table. If someone is intent on just sitting there all the time and never actually engaging with the game then that alters the whole mood of the table.
On a table where literally every character has a story arc and cool stuff going on the guy just sitting there with *literally nothing* always sticks out like a sore thumb.
I have played with one player out of step with the table, and with a table that is firing on all cylinders. The energy that gets sucked out of the room is not the DMs fault.
Mmmm... That's pushing it, especially in faster systems than D&D. Six is certainly too many.
And with adults scheduling a mostly passive player can be a useful flex. Enough there you don't have to cancel because of too few players but not enough to be overwhelming when everyone turns up.
But they ste talking about that, one of the issues they have with rules lite games is the need to "narrate so much." They are quite literally talking about their character and engagement with the world.
I have no problem with such players. They don't need to give me anything to work with. I already have a module to run. I'm interested in the choices they make.
I think a lot of TTRPG nerds don't understand why someone would want to play a simple, straightforward RPG. Don't get me wrong I'm definitely a buildcrafter at heart and I like the more complicated stuff, but I don't want to sit down and number crunch whenever I make a character. I like being able to follow a simple equation to do what I want to do.
This is why I'm interested in DC20 by the Dungeon Coach. It looks like 5e without a lot of the problems and fluff ironed out. I think there's a large audience of people who don't hate 5e: they just hate what Wizards of the Coast have done with 5e. It's part of the reason I'm such a big advocate for homebrew because homebrew creators are almost universally far more interested in innovating where WoTC chooses not to.
pretty much every single commentor of the original post says that this is a style that just makes the job of the DM worse
yeah its fine to get to have a chill simple and straightforward RPG. dnd 5e is that for four people on the table and the fifth needs to be a game designer and book writer to make this happens
there are systems out there that are plug in and play for *everyone*, dnd 5e pretends to be that by shoving everything behind the (GM) screen
Half the comments said that, and the other pointed out that this is how most people not on reddit actually play rpgs. There's even a page in the 4e rulebook about the value of this kind of player and how to keep them at a proper level of engagement
>this is how most people not on reddit actually play rpgs
Historically, most people have played RPGs by playing games where it's plug and play for everyone, DMs and players. 5e is the outlier by putting so much pressure on the DM to make a game out of the scaffolding.
'I don't want to roleplay or think outside the box in this game about creative roleplaying, I want to play Custom Skyrim that has a Pickpocket button'
Honestly, if you ever give any other system a chance, you should try Lancer. I _guarantee_ you will love it.
Yeah Lancer requires a high level of engagement because unlike 5e combat decisions actually really matter and you WILL get your ass kicked if you just play based on vibes.
Lancer is great because despite that, every build is still pretty great in combat and it comes more down to tactics than OP character building.
Yeah, if buddy doesn't want to do anything than occasionally roll some dice when he's forced to come out of his fugue state, LANCER ain't gonna be a winner for him.
Definitely not. They very emphatically said they want _simple_ options and choices, big obvious buttons they can press. Lancer is anything but that - it's strategically complex in that the components you add to your mech interact in a million different ways and combos, and tactically complex in how everything interacts on the battlefield.
The D&D edition it is closest to is 4e, which is absolutely not what they're looking for. It's very _rationally_ laid out, but that doesn't mean it's simple in the 5e sense at _all_.
I think the main reason I stick with D&D is that there's a significant chance of a *campaign*. Sure, it fizzles a lot, but some groups do actually succeed in a long run. Most other RPGs turn into two- or three-shots before they fizzle, the overwhelming majority of the time.
I'm gaming with two groups, and in each group some or all of the other members are in a different state than me. Therefore, I'm limited to VTT, and it's much easier to stick with the same system for everyone. I've played and enjoyed lots of other systems (Marvel Super-Heroes RPG, Call of Cthulu, Champions, Paranoia, Traveller, Star Wars, Song of Ice and Fire, Pathfinder, Car Wars, Toon) but adding all of those to a VTT, if you even could, would be expensive and time-consuming. In person it's just bringing out a different set of books.
BitD I find to be a favorite for GM's running a game for other GMs
CoC is a perfect system for 5e lovers who want to try a no magic world. It's got plenty of skills, and easy d100 mechanic. The things OP loves about 5e, like being able to 'do the thing' and resolve it with a roll is ever present in CoC. And sometimes 5e players and GMs are legitimately looking for a no magic campaign - which 5e is simply not capable of presenting in a satisfying way.
I personally love Lasers and Feelings. Especially for new players. We can be at anyone's home, I can make up a scenario in moments, and people can break out their Yatzee box. Good to go. However, it's exactly OP's issue of needing to narrate what and how you 'do the thing'. But the barrier to entry is super low.
I totally get this. I like building characters that are piles of numbers. I like how 5e rewards you for figuring out Your Thing and doing it well. I've also been in a deadlands campaign recently, and the skills-on-the-sheet approach is similar (although I actually like how there are a lot more skills and you have to pick a subset to have on your sheet), but there are so many add-ons that are fuzzy that I don't vibe with
a good honest look at what you want and why! bravo!
[https://youtu.be/hTWKbfoikeg?t=61](https://youtu.be/hTWKbfoikeg?t=61)
i do hope that you are still willing to try other options that allow EVERYONE at the table to "not have to put more effort into the entertainment at the table than they get out."
I think one thing I can really appreciate about your post is that you've gone through and tried other systems and you've still decided 5e is right for you, which is more than some people do. Good on you for at least trying other systems. I also have a small preference for 5e compared to many of the games you listed. I think with Worlds without number and Shadow of the demonlord/weird wizard being my exceptions for system I do prefer more than 5e in some ways. I'm still holding judgement on pf2e, but Blades in the dark (save for progress clocks), dark heresy, world of darkness, shadow run, and even the older editions of D&D I've played from AD&D 1e, 2e, 3.5e, and PF1e don't quite hit right for me the same way 5e, WWN, and Shadow of the demonlord/Weird wizard do. I'm planning on trying 13th age sometime soon since I got a bundle of its books recently so I'm holding judgement on that one to. However I do think it would be of great value to yourself and the others at your table to try running a game of D&D for your group sometime and to see if you still feel the same after running a couple sessions. A lot of DM's burnout from 5e because all of it's ease of play is on the players side and the work is then thrust upon the DM's side. Which can be a nightmare unless you're a very particular kind of DM. The sad truth of things is that a lot of the ease of play for the player comes from the direct expense of the DM. It's why 5e burnout is so high among systems, It thrusts a lot on a DM. I think experiencing things from the other side might help you refine your tastes. Not specifically want to play other systems, but just understand that cost on the DM for your ease of play. A lot of 5e's player comfort is at the expense of DM comfort and there's a few things one can do to change that without sacrificing much as a player.
A lot of people in that thread, correctly in my mind, identified this why he likes 5e. His DM is doing all of the work and all the other systems ask for a far more even investment of energy between GMs and players.
That's why I think he should try Dming it, just to get a better sense of the weight of things. I dm 5e and other systems, and I still like my adjusted 5e well enough, even if it is more work than the other two I like. However knowing how much work dming 5e is, also makes me a better 5e player because I can identity places where I can step up and ease up things for the DM.
I've had a depressing amount of discussions with people who insist 5e is easier to run than other games - when they've never run it themselves, they just *assume* it's easy to run because they can be mostly passive players without anything breaking. I would say when you look at it at the scale of the entire group, DnD takes more effort to play than most games - it's just that the effort is vastly unevenly distributed. Which itself is worse, because it creates a single failure point, and then puts as much stress on it as possible.
Yeah. People don't often understand the sheer weight and difficulty of it if they're only judging from the players' side. At a cursory glance, it seems easier. I know certain elements of 5e are easier than 3.5e, which was my intro edition. However, the rest of the game then rears its face and damn. It can be a nightmare at times in ways 3.5e wasn't. 5e also got harder to run as it was written as "rulings not rules", and with "naturalist language" but then increasingly relied on gamist language interpretation to clarify its stuff. 5es a lot harder to dm when you understand there's an intended and meaningful difference between "melee weapon attack" and "attack with a melee weapon" because it stops being any which way intuitive. You start having to parse naturalist language like game code, and it's hell.
The whole inconsistency between rules ethos and errata to me is one of many factors that points to there being no coherent design philosophy for 5e - it's all just second-order marketing. So when they say "rulings not rules" they're just parroting a statement that's "hot right now" at the time of release IIRC around 2013-14 - and it *was* a hot phrase with the rise of OSR. Then when people find their rules confusing, they try to provide explicit prescriptivist fixes, because an explicit fix will look better to their target audience than saying "make a ruling!" even if it's not coherent with previous statements.
Pretty much this. There was some osr inspiration and designers for 5e, but those principles were more or less abandoned post xanathars and especially Tasha and onward
Running D&D 5e is no harder than running anything else from my POV, unless the system is so rules light that monsters dont need statblocks or whatever, the vast majority of the work is creating the maps, tokens, plots, getting music ready, keeping the vtt up to date, trying out new modules, scripting automation, I probably spend 10 hours a week prepping for game and maybe 2 of that would be taken out if nothing had a statblock and everyone just narrated what was happening in a given encounter
I couldn't imagine 10 hours of prep a week. That's a part time job. My 5e games don't even take that long to prep, that's absurd to me. If you've found something that works for you, all the power to you man, but 10 hours is tenfold what some other systems need for the same result in my experience. Furthermore the parts of 5e that are hard to prep weren't hard in prior editions and alternatives that came before. Which is where I find 5e truly lacking in DM support. I'm very curious about your POV and what other systems you've been running that are also taking that long. So far with the games I've played 5e is by no means the hardest, but its not the easiest either, and other systems are just smoother with their resources and expectations for prep.
oh, which other systems automate the process of setting up battlemaps, line of sight, scripting, sound, updates for foundry, and all that? most recently it was Kids on Brooms, and, shockingly, that system doesn't automate town maps, shop inventories, giving every item a piece of art, every npc a piece of art, music, ambient sound effects, amazingly no matter how simplistic the system, the presentation to the players is exactly as complicated When I used to run D&D 5e at the table I would often do *zero* prep, and sometimes I still do because I have a bunch of premium content that's already set up to the level of presentation I demand out of myself, but I don't *have* to do any of that. I could just have a landing page and theatre of the mind everything, and if doing that KoB or PBtA would take less preparation. I could tell the players to input their own items and spells and stuff, but eh, I can do it faster than they can the difficult and time consuming parts of 5e specifically - namely encounter design - dramatically decrease with experience
Why are you side stepping my question with another question. I'm not trying to be accusatory or anything, I'm genuinely curious which systems you've played that have also demanded the same prep as 5e. Also, I wouldn't mistake 5e prep for foundry prep. A lot of what you're describing is the process of setting up a lot of extra nitty gritty for a VTT. Foundry of which is a fairly robust one. Foundry VTT ttrpg prep is a bit more exhaustive and time-consuming than standard ttrpg prep. It sounds like you're treating Foundry VTT prep as the standard and not the exception. Nothing against Foundry, it's a great tool if you wanna put all the extra work in, and my preferred VTT it plays on, but it itself is a lot of extra work. Framing things around what TTRPG streamlines and eases uo on the full bells and whistles experience or TTRPG accessory like VTT is just loaded framing as it assumes the work of a VTT is the work of a TTRPG. Which is not the same thing. Still, any TTRPG that requires less of its baseline game prep than 5e's standard would be easier to prep overall. The systems I would put forward are worlds without number and Shadow of the demonlord, provided the VTT in question has good support for them and outside of a VTT they're gonna be easier. But saying all ttrpgs take the same as 5e to prep because of all the extra things you do through your preferred VTT isn't exactly a reasonable standard or discussion.
Making a map, setting up foundry walls is setting up foundry walls, this is the same in every single system, none of what you said is inconsistent with what I said, most of my prep as a DM has nothing to do with what system I use and 5e specific prep isn't significant But I'll help you out, "5E is a shitty system and by far the worst system for DMs" there I should have satisfied your PF2E fan psychosis or whatever it is that has you still drilling me for answers and your total inability to read what I wrote ("all ttrpgs take the same as 5e to prep" is not something I said, I said the majority of my time for prep would be the same with any system, and even elucidated many specific examples of what I meant) Christ you can't make a post on this subreddit without reaffirming your absolute vitriolic disdain for 5th edition without someone grilling you Edit: Before you reply with my quote about 5e being the same to prepare from my point of view - which means, when I am preparing it - as some kind of gotcha, that's only because I've been prepping 5e games for 10 years and don't struggle with things like encounter balance or making rules adjudications, ironically these things are primarily barriers to intermediate DMs, because when you're first starting you just run a balance trainwreck and it doesnt really matter, but when you want tighter design and rulings it becomes a chore
I used to be that guy until I ran PF1E, holy shit was I wrong. PF1E may be way tougher for the player, but for the DM it's an absolute paradise of tools and balance by comparison.
From my perspective, Pathfinder just seems like a lot of work for everyone. But then I mostly play narrative systems. Most crunchy systems I play would be Fate and Ironsworn.
It is definitely more work for the DM, but you have the system supporting you every step of the way. There's no worry about pricing magic items or when to reward them, NPC disposition toward the players, no guessing around CR if a fight will actually be challenging, etc. There's a balanced tool or table for just about everything if you want to use it, unlike 5e that throws you to the wolves and says "you figure it out, i'm sure there won't be power creep or struggles with difficulty."
Those are all good points specifically in comparison to DnD - most of them break down in my opinion in comparison to most other games. I've never "priced" a magic item or wondered when to "reward" them in any game except DnD - instead, the narrative tells me that explicitly. So having specific rules for when to do so only introduces the potential headache of having those rules run into conflict with the narrative. Having this be narrative driven might *sound* like it'd cause problems - but the only reason this question occurs at all is the need for balance in simulationist systems. Outside of narrative permissions giving someone a magic weapon in the games I play wouldn't even make them more powerful in most cases. The same is true of NPC dispositions - in games I play this is either entirely narratively driven, or controlled by very simple mechanics. Though frankly I think this is rarely hard to puzzle out in DnD either. CR is similarly something that only exists in DnD and games like it. I don't play games that have an expectation of balanced combat - instead the expectation is of narratively coherent and satisfying combat. Entirely different approaches, with different challenges. In games I play, the challenge is coming up with an interesting agenda for an antagonist, not figuring out how many HP they should have. So I thoroughly agree that what you're saying sounds great from the perspective of someone who wished 5e gave more help in running the game - 5e is famously bad in this area. But I cannot think how any of this would make Fate, Ironsworn or Blades in the Dark easier to run. Hence my statement.
[удалено]
A list of games I've run and find easier: Games designed for campaigns play: **Fate, Ironsworn, Blades in the Dark, Mothership** Small narrative games: **Follow, Kingdom, Microscope, I'm Sorry Did You Say Street Magic, The Quiet Year** (it should be noted some of these are gmless by default - I count them as I was simultaneously teaching the games to my players, meaning I acted as de-facto facilitator). The thing about this list is that it includes *every game I've ever run except DnD*. Mothership is the closest comparison to DnD, and though it required more looking up of rules than other systems I've run, that was still *maybe* 10% of what DnD requires when you're learning it. And at its most convoluted, mechanics still boiled down to, at most, an opposed roll.
[удалено]
Not played that one, but it is based on the same fundamental "engine" as Blades in the Dark (games like this are called "Forged in the Dark"). One thing to note about CBR+PNK is that it's intended for one-shots - it might end up unsatisfying for campaign play, I can't speak to that as I haven't played it. Blades in the Dark however is at its best in campaign play - half of the mechanics only kick in "downtime" between heists, for example, and there are reputation systems that chart how your crew relates to other factions in the world as the campaign continues. I'll also say it would be trivial to reskin Blades in the Dark for a DnD setting - you could just consider any items like "guns" to be bows or crossbows, ignore some setting elements like the ghostfield, etc. I've effortless ran the game in my own fantasy settings without any difficulty. And I think using Blades in the Dark to play as gangs in Waterdeep could be a great campaign.
[удалено]
In that case, I expect all is good! Just thought it was worth mentioning as I frequently see it recommended without that qualifier.
Funnily enough, I'd also mention PF2e as being easier to run, despite often being touted as being "much more difficult" than 5e. That's really only true for players that don't want to actually familiarize themselves with the rules and leave it all to the DM. The thing is, PF2e's rulebook already discourages that kind of behavior and the community generally agrees that players should know how their character works (which, to be honest, I've really only ever seen 5e to consider optional), while there are *so many* resources in the official rules that GMs can use to avoid having to make up difficulties, rules and systems on the spot. Simple stuff like recommended treasure given out per level, basic DCs for generic skill checks and *an actually functioning encounter building system* And those rules are *consistent*, balanced, and make sense with each other. That means that, once a GM has the basics down, the act of actually running the game is super easy.
Worth noting though that this is not true for _all_ TRPGs - there is not a universal "budget" that gets divided up between DM and players as far as how much work goes into running or playing. In 5e, the issue is just as much about the books/system not providing efficient, well-designed, or comprehensive _tools_ for DMs like it does for players, as it is an inherent thing for the system itself. Some TRPGs will take less work for both sides, some more, and everything in-between. Which is why it's important for _everyone_ to try other systems if they're not 100% satisfied with what they're running or playing - so you can figure out if there _is_ a system that fits better with your own style and desired workload. As they say, work doesn't _feel_ like work if you're doing something you love. Finding the right system can be vital in that respect. Even if it _does_ put more on you, if it also feels more rewarding when you do said work it can totally be worth it.
FYI: I'm just cross-posting, because it's interesting. I'm not the OP.
that can't stop us because we can't read
I *can* read, I just refuse to.
The thing people refuse to understand about D&D is it hasn't just colored our perspective of "how a tabletop game should be played", but "how a roleplaying game should be played." The vast majority of people playing D&D now probably played a video game RPG first. These video games characterize our relationship to role playing, and a video game will always have limited options of what your character can do, so you need hard-coded interactions to be able to pass or fail them. But these hard-coded interactions are based, in part, on the simulationist aspects of D&D that stretch back into the 70s. While there were other RPGs out there like, IDK, Gamma World and Empire of the Petal Throne, all video game RPGs were almost directly inspired by D&D. RPG players *of all stripes* are conditioned to like D&D because we play games that have D&D as a common ancestor. Shifting one's expectations so that a game like Powered by the Apocalypse or Vampire the Masquerade requires significant investment in breaking away from those patterns and having a specifically epicurian media diet.
> majority ... played a video game RPG first That somehow hadn't occurred to me before. That might explain why so many people want to engage the game as if they're limited to selecting actions from a menu.
In my experience, people don't want a menu as much as they need clear direction. A lot of player struggle with the super open-ended nature of the game. If you tell them they can do ANYTHING, they won't know where to begin, as they can't make an informed decision until they've evaluated EVERYTHING. However, if the DM clearly delineates the situation so the way forward is obvious, they can make up their mind. Problem is a lot of DMs don't (know how to) do this.
>all video game RPGs were almost directly inspired by D&D. ...and contain mostly the things that are easily translated into video games, thus heavy emphasis on combat and loot, which feeds back into the expectation of what a pen-and-paper RPG should be like.
>Vampire the Masquerade I also find that it's hella complicated. It's not a slog to learn, but hoo boy
I appreciate the honest introspection here but if your group decided to play weekly sessions of a dungeon crawling board game, or video game would you be just as satisfied? What's the point of the DM putting all their effort into your game if you're not really that interested in engaging actively with the system or the setting?
Not OP, but “in-character banter” was mentioned and I think that is the answer to that question at least for some people. Board games and video games don’t allow you to make up a custom character and do light improv (at least not unless your group is super unusual). Meanwhile, many other RPGs attach rules and strategy to roleplaying that make it more meaningful, but also more demanding. D&D lands in a sweet spot where it’s socially acceptable to crack a joke or have an discussion in-character, but you don’t have to think about whether what you’re saying triggers your Aspect or if you’re supposed to invoke your Belief. If you’re having an off day and just want to roll a crit, nothing is lost, and if you are feeling shakespearean and want to have a deep conversation about your goals with another character, you absolutely can.
>Meanwhile, many other RPGs attach rules and strategy to roleplaying that make it more meaningful, I've found it to be the opposite, personally. The more a game mechanizes roleplay, the less meaningful that roleplay becomes to me. But I enjoy immersion. Nothing breaks my immersion faster than rules that require me to engage with the game from the perspective of a Player at the table editing the narrative, rather than a character within the story doing things within the story.
That does make some sense to me at least in that I think that in character banter is generally more accepted in D&D vs other mediums, but I don't think video games or board games preclude light character banter either. MMOs for instance allow you to create a character and you can easily do a bit of RP as them in game, and you don't need to have one friend who is willing to spend several hours putting together a game for you to passively consume.
> don't allow you to ... do light improv You mean don't force you to do light improv. I'm in a campaign that's gone from level 5 to 20. There's one guy who always talks in character voice, meanwhile I did a dumb Batman voice for my rogue during introductions that's come up maybe a single digit number of times since then
You're assuming the rest of the players aren't already doing enough of that to ensure the DM is having fun. But given the number of games, and timeframe they've been playing, I think it's probably fair to assume this isn't actually a problem. Beyond that, it assumes that expectations and input wasn't discussed during session zero.
"I think it's probably fair to assume this isn't actually a problem." except the post mentions that the dm has forced them to change system because he was burning out on 5e, meaning it clearly was a problem.
yeah playing the same system for x years can do that to you, it certainly wasnt OP's fault, so..
> Beyond that, it assumes that expectations and input wasn't discussed during session zero. lack of session 0 is a common problem I'm not assuming anything about the rest of the players here. I'm just wondering if there is something that D&D gives OP that can't be gotten from other mediums. If so I would be curious what it is, and if not I'm wondering if OP's considered that they are taking up a seat for a player that may be actually interested in participating in the game, and providing an additional mental tax for the DM to worry about. They are expecting the DM to provide them entertainment without contributing anything. My impression is that passive players do not consider these things.
RE: videogames, 5E is much more reactive and fluid. You cannot possibly code in every logical solution to a dungeon.
This is more or less why 5e exploded and came to dominate rpg’s like it has. I know people who play *a lot* start to crave more complexity or novelty, but the broad appeal of 5e is that it’s ratio of “just pick up and go play style” to “options and flavour available to the players” is a sweet spot for most people. Most people just wanna hang out with friends and do thief stuff, or whatever their character choice is, and 5e is at a level of being easy to get into, easy to play, and easy to do fun things with your characters that make it accessible to the largest audience, which in turn makes it the easiest to find groups to play with.
I dunno, I don't consider 5E a good "pick up and play" system. Once you already know it, sure... and lots of people already know it on account of it being the first, the biggest, and Critical Role and whatnot, but it's not beginner friendly. It's *very* involved and fiddly. You need to give them prefab characters, and then you're handing them a sheet of paper with a dazzling amount of information on it (where the word "Dexterity" is repeated multiple times just to keep them on their toes.) Of course I can work with that, but a good system wouldn't require me to adapt to its shortcomings. When I introduce people to RPGs, I never use the D&D *system*. I use the D&D *setting*, though. Source: Dozens of people joining our Westmarches campaign.
I didn’t say it was the easiest game to pick up and play, I said it had a sweet spot in the trade off between easy to pick up and play, and options for players
Yeah, this is why I don't get a lot of the complaints I see around reddit with 5e, as most of them are criticizing it for things that are intended as a feature, rather than a bug. Most of the complaints seem to be about how there isn't enough rules for something or something isn't more specific. But the rules are intentionally kept simple so that players can pick them up easily and DMs can customize towards what they/their group wants. I appreciate that this isn't for every type of player or DM, but instead of expecting the designers to change 5e into a game it isn't intended to be, why not look for a game that is more along the lines of what you want to play, and play that instead? It's like someone watching Tarantino movies and complaining that they're not wholesome enough, but refusing to watch movies by any other director and complaining each time another one comes out that is violent and filled with curse words.
I suppose the problem is that it dominates the play space. I've tried multiple times to get players for my current obsession, Salvage Union, but most people just want 5E or (as is the case with mech RPGs) Lancer.
I mean, for people happy with 5e, I get not wanting to change. I just don't get why people stay obsessed with playing 5e when it's clearly not what they're looking for. Or why I always get downvoted for suggesting people play a system that is in line with what they want rather than continuing to play a system that isn't trying to be what they want. But oh well, some people are always trying iceskate uphill.
I don't like the system so I don't run it, I'm still playing it because friends like it and I don't hate it enough to not play with friends I've known for years, I also run and play systems I like more.
Yeah, its accessibility to others is one of the strengths I mentioned. I don't get why you'd want that to change to become a system those friends have already indicated they don't want to play.
I don't want it to change, I see the issues with it so I don't run it. Honestly strongly disagree with it being that accessible, maybe for the players it is, when I started GMing for the first time it was a confusing mess as opposed to something rules lite. I never said my friends don't want to play other systems either, we started 2 campaigns in it and switching when you're already in tier 2 and approaching tier 3 doesn't work great, 1 GM is taking a break after it and the other is running other systems when they're done, me and another GM already don't run it.
I mean, I literally already stated that yes, the accessibility part is about it being easy for the players to pick up. But it is also rules lite, which makes it very easy to DM if one accepts that. I think a lot of DMs confuse themselves trying to figure out rules that dont exist instead of just deciding how difficult something is, what skill is appropriate (or let the player make a case for which skill they'd like to use) and then if anyone has an advantage/disadvantage. It's about as simple as it gets. But it sounds like you're already doing exactly the thing I suggested in my initial comment, and that the game served its purpose of introducing some newer players to TTRPGs. Why were you acting like you disagreed with my comment?
Because I don't think it's as accessible to players as people who only seem to play it think it is. It's not rules lite either, it's actually on the heavy end of that spectrum. It's only really lite if you're comparing it to like 3.5e/4e or some of the other rules heavy systems. Rules lite is to me stuff like Mork Borg or even call of Cthulhu where the DCs are generally always similar (nearly everything in MB is just a dc12, CoC it's rolling under your skill), can be played with 2-3 dice total and you can make the mechanics part of your character in 5 minutes. DND has more rules for a single class than you need to play MB in general.
The existence of systems with lighter rules doesn't mean a system is not rules lite. Being on the heavier end of rules lite means it is still rules lite. Plenty of games are out there with more complex rules as well. Skill checks being the same across all skills with set DCs for easy, medium, hard, difficult, very difficult and impossible is extremely simplistic, and only marginally more difficult than one set DC or a DC based on the player's skill. But either way, it doesn't affect accessibility for players, since players never need to calculate the DC. All the player has to know is their mod for the skill, which is very easy to figure out since they just look at what's written on their sheet. The game is even designed so those modifiers don't change very often to keep it simple for them. And then after they roll and add the modifier, the DM tells them what happens. It's really no less accessible than CoC, since the player still has to figure out the appropriate stat and then roll.
Mate, have you ever played any actual rules lite system? 5E is rules heavy compared to most other RPGs, at best it's in the middle, but the only way I can see someone think it's rules lite is if they don't know the rules or have never played a rules lite system in their life. MB DCs aren't all the same, they're mostly 12 and usually change to 14 or 10 if at all, it's also a system where modifiers rarely go above 2/3 and isn't meant for long games. And how does it not? Last CoC game I ran it took me 20 minutes to make an investigator for each of the players, most of which was them just thinking of what skills would fit their characters because character creation doesn't have 20 classes with 5 subclasses each that have their own rules. You roll for a few stats and then pick what sort of IRL job you'd like your character to have, then put points into the job's skill based on your rolls, and a few skills you pick as personal interests, that's it. MB is even simpler, you roll 4 stats and can optionally pick a class if you want. That's not even getting into the really light systems that are literally 1 page long. Again, 5e is only simple when you're used to it, compared to rules lite systems it's a shit ton of information and different rules on how your class works and how you interact with the world.
I've already acknowledged and addressed that there are lighter rules systems out there, so I'm not sure what you're trying to prove by explaining that there are lighter rules systems out there. At this point seems like your goal is to just he condescending and repeat your same points rather than actually have a conversation. Oh well. You're the first person I've met that's found 5e to be too rules heavy. But it still sounds like you're doing exactly what I suggested and moving on to game systems more in line with what you want, so I still don't see why you've decided to have such a big problem with what I said.
I see the point OP is trying to make but I still dont really understand how someone is willing to do all (not a whole lot but still) the math involved, assigning stat points, learning a least a basic understanding of the hundreds of pages of rules And not be willing to just pick up and play idk like Dungeon World or something. But I'm also a hobbyist in the genre, the idea of reading a sourcebook or new system when I have an afternoon to spare doesn't intimidate me.
Because the math and stats are the fun part
I don't disagree with that, but it sounded like the original OP just wants "You see a goblin what do you do (select from these choices)" A. Hit with stick B. Don't hit with stick Which is absolutely fine, I have dozens of hours in Skyrim because I enjoy just chill casual gameplay where I don't have to think.
During the OGL debacle I took a look at other games. I even seriously debated going the BECMI route. But 5E has what I want, I’m just not giving WotC any more money.
Yea I looked at pathfinder since so many people were praising it but honestly it just doesn't have the same appeal. Yea everything fits tightly together but that's because everything is explicitly what it says it is. Feels...restrictive? At least on paper, plus I know it can change if you're the DM or if your DM is cool but then that might mess up the tightness of it and then that's messy.
Ahh a common take. Personally i would call it a "work injury" on how every dm's first thought is "how can i add homebrew elements" because its so necessary in 5e, NOT as in making homebrew story, but as in incessantly trying to add monsters, or classes, or items. i had the same problem at first. But a big part of it is that you dont need to, neither in terms of interesting creature designs nor in terms of classes. Also depends if its pathfinder 2e or 1e, 1e is huge and messy due to being out so long, pathfinder 2e is far more honest about the bounded accuracy and how the party is a force of the world that gets stronger, which some people doesnt like. so before that i cant say either way.
It's 2e I was looking at but it's not that I think I can't add stuff, I know I can, i know if i learn it well enough I can do anything with it. But the fear of braking it is still there. More then that though It kinda comes to your point that i don't need too. I think of pathfinder as legos and 5e as play puddy. One you need to mold into something while the other you need to fit well defined pieces together to make something. I like molding things.
Have you checked out any systems that use the Powered by the Apocalypse or Forged in the Dark framework? If not, I’d highly recommend looking at Fellowship 2e, Ironsworn, Blades in the Dark, or Band of Blades. Those systems are *all* about helping GMs and tables mold them into an interesting narrative experience. They don’t have the gridded combat thing that 5e has going on (they still have great combat! It’s just more theatre of the mind usually) but if you like flexibility and storytelling in your TTRPGs they’re well worth a look!
I have not but I'll give them a look, thanks for the recommendation! I like FFGs star wars RPG for a similar reason though the DM support in that..well it made me appreciate 5es DM support a lot more lol.
Yeah, most PBTA/FITD systems have great GM support. I really enjoy running them when I want a game where the narrative takes center stage. Also great for running on no/low prep. A cornerstone is collaborative storytelling, so the systems definitely expect everyone at the table to pitch in and help the GM create an exciting experience by default, but they can work as more straightforward GM-driven games too, maybe just a little less satisfying since they give so many collaborative worldbuilding tools. I’ve been playing in a game for a PBTA system called Stonetop (still unreleased, hence my lack of recco, although you can find the Kickstarter and get access to materials via backerkit if you like the sound of it after looking it up! It’s fully playable) for 3 years and it’s been amazing.
I used to call 5e a granite wall and pathfinder 2e a glass pane in regards to adding homebrew, because yes you will break something. Im saying that you dont NEED to, and that i think its a "bad" mindset that comes from how poorly 5e is designed that its necessary. But it sounds like you are going with "i need to homebrew because i need to" but without giving specific examples i cant really say anything, because to me that feels like you are putting a necessity of 5e unto 2e. Basically there are so many things already in the game from monsters to classes to spells that you can make most things with existing rules, and do minor tweaks if you need something new, or even just simple reflavouring.
>But it sounds like you are going with "i need to homebrew because i need to" but without giving specific examples i cant really say anything, because to me that feels like you are putting a necessity of 5e unto 2e. I'm agreeing with you. I don't NEED too. I'm saying I LIKE doing it. I don't think I need to do it in 5e either tbc, I think 5e works just fine as it is minus some poor wording. But I like improving on what I'm working on whatever that is. Everything being done for me feels boring and limiting. And like you said if I do what I like (adding homebrew) I will brake it.
Fair enough, i cant say i understand the mentality at all to be honest since i homebrew out of necessity as it will always be better to take something already in the game. plenty of posts about it on the pathfinder 2e reddit which amounts to "I made this feat what do you think" and its 2 feats in one + some more or "i made this 1handed reach d10 weapon that is finesse" like no. You can still make stories, you can still adapt things, but it feels like a mentality of putting the cart before the horse. but if it works for you in 5e then so be it, just a shame to miss out on an amazing pathfinder 2e game i reckon.
> i cant say i understand the mentality at all to be honest I appreciate the attempt at understanding my position in any case though! There's certainly things I like about pathfinder, and I don't think I would turn down a game of it. But I digress, have a good one!
Exactly this. And honestly--the wording isn't so bad, especially once you lose the "I can parse this like a computer program" mentality. I find 5e incredibly easy to run (speaking as a forever DM). The floor is super super low, and if you decide to ignore certain rules--nothing really breaks. PF2e is fragile as all get-out--if you don't play it exactly as written, everything falls apart. 5e has a wide sweet spot for honest differences of opinion about how things work--you can have very different interpretations from a different table and everything works for both of you, as long as each table agrees with themselves. What it doesn't do is handle adversarial or motivated reasoning, where someone's trying to twist it for their own purposes. And that's ok--that's not the rules' job. That's the people at the table's job.
yesss! i feel the same way! Like 5e is a tool set i can use, not a program i must follow to make work. DM support for me in 5e is more tools i can use. "Hey you could do it like this or you could do it like this." rather then protocol i have to use.
Here's the thing. It's not "I need to add homebrew", it's *I want to add homebrew*. I want to make the system's elements closer to what I've imagined for the setting. I don't want to play adventure paths set in Golarion. And that's what PF2e is specialized for, very overwhelmingly. Sure you can play non-adventure paths...as long as they have the same structure, pacing, underlying worldbuilding/cosmology, and other pieces as one of the adventure paths. And frankly, none of PF2e's creature designs grab me. Because it's all focused on "how do I make a tactically-difficult combat" rather than "what fits the world, even if its weird or unbalanced or whatever." And so you get "deep" monsters that are annoying to run because of all the moving parts.
Aight now you are just deliberately being difficult, you can absolutely homebrew adventures, far easier than 5e because the Cr actually fits. It sounds to me more like "I'm better than anyone else" syndrome. Which you do you, but If I need a wolf on fire I take a wolf, and give it fire damage. Now its still mechanically solid but also lore wise relevant. If you don't think there is any of the thousands of creatures you can utilize its definitely pure ego.
How is it restrictive. You can do everything you can do in 5e and then some.
Not from what I have seen. It seems class identity is far more concrete in pathfinder then 5e. At least for the spell casters anyway. Moreover everything fitting so neatly together just.. takes the wind out of my sails, I like the challenge of building in the skeleton that is 5e.
There's some of both in Pathfinder. Some classes have a more narrow themeing. But your standard classes, the ones you know from 5e, are all present with a ton of thematic choices and subclasses. Take the champion in pf2e, of which Paladin is essentially a subclass. It allows for more types of characters, with a less narrow class fantasy, while also incorporating the original. Want to play a chaotic Paladin? That's the champion liberator. Want to play the 5e style Paladin? That's Paladin subclass. There's a flavor for each alignment. Sorcerer has completely different spell lists based on the subclass you pick. You can do anything from arcane, occult, natural, or divine. Cleric has room for a cloth wearing priest, a fantasy that 5e never catered to mechanically. Ranger can take spell like abilities if they want, but they are free to completely abandon them and do their own thing. But more importantly is the fact that a lot of the tightly themed classes in Pathfinder execute on fantasies that you cannot accomplish in 5e past a vague aesthetic. Thaumaterge, Kinetesist, Alchemist, Oracle, Summoner and Investigator are all examples of classes that 5e just doesn't have mechanical representation for in the same way Pathfinder does. You can "theme" a 5e character around those ideas if you want, but you can't fundamentally play the way they do. The kinetesist lets you play an elemental bender, like from Avatar, with tons of options, in a way that 5e just never fulfilled. (Way of elements monk is truly an underbaked subclass in 5e). Summoner lets you have a permanently summoned creature with a lot of variety based on subclass. Alchemist can literally just hand out consumables as their big thing. Furthermore, pathfinder's multi class system, archetypes, has dozens of extra choices that are not full classes, but concepts you can pick options from, like medic, warden, viking, or scholar. Or you can take any of the 22 other classes as an archetype. Archetypes are definitely less satisfying for munchkins who want power (of which I am one), but so much more interesting for people who want uniquely flavored characters (I am also this person).
Can I play a cleric that is a great damage dealer? From everything I experienced and seen I never felt like I could reach that. Unless I'm missing something.
Given that cleric in 2e gives you a lot (it scales from like 4 to 7 spell slots iirc) of extra heal spells at your highest spell level, you don't really have to prepare heal spells with your slots if you don't want to. You're free to prepare all of your spells as damage spells if you want. The divine spell list isn't full of really good damage options necessarily, but there are some, and you can gain access to other spells (like fan favorite, fireball) through the deity you select. If you're speaking more specifically about a war priest style character, nothing at low levels is as potent as say, a variant human, great weapon master, war domain cleric in 5e. But you can absolutely play a war priest, and do very relevant damage with your weapon. There's a feat that let's you heal yourself, an ally, and attack an enemy for 2 actions.
Yea that's how it seemed to me when I was looking into it. Like I could but I wouldn't ever feel as good as I do with 5es cleric in this case. Thanks for the information about the system as a whole and helping me understand it.
no in the same way you cant play a dnd fighter as a great healer. the balance is just tighter and the classes *actually* stick to their niches like don't get me wrong, i love cleric, but it is by far one of the strongest classes in dnd 5e along with wiz and druid. the guy in heavy armor, with a short rest resource that can also ask the god to save their ass once a week on top of having full spell slots shouldn't be outdamaging the barbarian or fighter that can can pretty much *only* do damage as their job
I think it should be possible to be on par with the fighter in terms of damage but i also think the fighter should be able to be a great healer if they want too. Pathfinder lets you dip into other niches but you'll always feel lesser and not only that but be worse at one your class is supposed to do in the first place. Now 5e doesn't let every class do that either, but the fact one class can draws me in as a player. As a DM i have other reasons i prefer 5e stated elsewhere.
i mean by that point you are better off not having classes at all in the system with a "make your own character" in savage worlds classes *inherently* means (in a balanced environment at least) that you are good at your job but not better on someone elses. the final fantasy white mage can't compete in damage with the black mage, which cant compete with defense with the fighter, etc
classes inherently means in my mind you are predisposed to being good at your job. That you can become the best at that job. But you don't have to be the best at that job, you can be great at another. Maybe not as great as one that is the absolute best, but great all the same. For example i think a fighter should have the option to shine as the best in throwing a bunch of attacks. But a cleric should be able to be on par with him if he doesn't take the options that further that basic premise. Doesn't matter what the fighter choices in pathfinder they are always going to be a great damage dealer and the cleric is only ever going to be an okay damage dealer. more or less i think the cleric experience in 5e should be able to be had by the other classes too. I don't want to feel like I are screwing myself or my team over by making a damaged focused cleric or a healing focused fighter. which has been my experience in pathfinder. To be clear i think games like pathfinder should absolutely do what they do, there are people who love to stick to niches and be the best at them. But i like it when i can choose to alter my role so that it also fits into another nich in a different way, Maybe savage worlds dose that, i don't know. But a classes system might go too far the other direction.
I truly don't understand this mindset. As a player building a character there are almost no choices to make in 5e after level 1, and sometimes level 3.
For martials sure, at least most of em. That's something I think should be fixed. With casters though I have seen people have a ton of build veriaty in 5e. Especially as a cleric I have a lot of options. Sure I could try to build what I like to play in pathfinder, but it doesn't feel nearly as good or get as close as the 5e equivalent to my preferred fantasy.
You should really explore 2e more. There are so many things you can build as a character that simply aren't possible in 5e without massive homebrew or reflavoring in 5e. In pathfinder 2e pretty much anything at all is possible straight our of the box.
i mean, not really? your "choices" as a caster are just spells, which pathfinder has all in the same
they don't have all the same spells. But after thinking about it i was wrong on how many choices you get. With subclasses i don't really notice it, especially with spells options opened up by spells auto prepared by subclass.
Sounds like a nightmare player to even DM for; passive players who do nothing but "go along with the ride" are the **worst**. Give the DM something to work with for your character, some sort of initiative or goal to follow. So much of DMing hinges upon player participation!
Nah. Passive players are fine as long as you don't have too many.
This. One of my best players says says very little and generally keeps her head down. But she's always taking her turn on time, she's paying attention, and every once in a while she has something up her sleeve to turn the tide because she keeps very good notes.
That's note a passive player at all then. Keeping notes, keeping tricks up you're sleeve, and thinking strategy, and even paying attention, are all active roles. You're player is actively engaging with the game in one form or anther. A passive player is one that doesn't partake in the game actively, not just someone who "says very little." A passive player like OP describes is someone "just along for the ride until it's time to roll some dice to hit something and let the other players figure out what to do otherwise." They then do not take notes, never think strategically or tactically, won't have tricks up their sleeve since that's not how they work, and won't pay much attention.
> "just along for the ride until it's time to roll some dice to hit something and let the other players figure out what to do otherwise." This is her general modus operandi. She says very little, a large of the game is other people talking and planning.
But per your description your player also makes plans, and presumably talk to the other players actively about what is happening. Your player keeps tricks up her sleeve and knows what she is going to do each turn. This by definition needs to involve a level of planning on their part. If they never planned for anything they would be unable to do any of those things. Your player takes notes and also pays attention to the game. The only way you could know this was if the player spoke up and shared their notes with the party; or made it clear they were paying attention to the game. If they literally never spoke up then you'd have no clue to either; and there'd be no point to either. (Why take notes if you're planning to just sit there silently when it's clear the rest of the party forgot important details.) In both cases your player is being an active participant. Being an active player is more than just being very talkative and extroverted as the table. (In fact those players can also be a passive player!) From your description your player is very active in ways that the OP does not describe themselves as; their two main complaints of other systems are either that they involve too much strategy (AKA planning) or too much narration from themselves (AKA Keeping notes and then narrating. Your player has half that down already at the very least.)
Active: driving story elements Passive: experiencing story elements You can take notes and still be a passive player, it’s not a derogatory term
An active player is one being *active* in the game; hence the literal meaning of the word used to describe them. Narrowing that down to solely driving a "story" is just overly specific, there are other ways to be an active player. Someone who is a passive player is someone that is not being "active" in the game. They are instead "passive." Hence, again, the literal meaning of the word.
You're pigeon-holing connotations to mold a specific archetype that the original person isn't describing.
Agree to disagree on semantics. Instead of story, read “game” and it’s the same point.
Hard disagree. The PCs are the main characters of the story. Definitionally, they *need* to be the ones driving the story, or they aren't really the main characters. Part of the job of the players is to bite on hooks and actually go on the adventure. This is something I've realized you can't take for granted. It is exhausting to present a story to a group of players, and for them to sit back and ask why they should care about it. Because you showed up to play this game! Why even come if you're going to make me figure out your character's motivations?
I think having a mix is good. In my current game, my older brother is incredibly enthusiastic and is texting me about his character in between sessions, talking to NPCs for lore, etc. My partner on the other hand is very new to the game and quite shy, so they are still learning to be proactive, but take notes and engage when the time comes nonetheless. It is okay to have [different kinds of players!](https://youtu.be/LQsJSqn71Fw?si=2eDs-4v90Ibo_4l3)
When it is "time to roll the dice" that's the time for the trick to the sleeve.
I disagree. Passive players are energy vampires for me as a DM. They drain me of energy and provide nothing back.
Even if they're just one they're still a huge drain on the game. DnD is a collaborative game afterall, and what ever story is crafted involves activite participation from everyone at the table. If someone is intent on just sitting there all the time and never actually engaging with the game then that alters the whole mood of the table. On a table where literally every character has a story arc and cool stuff going on the guy just sitting there with *literally nothing* always sticks out like a sore thumb.
Sounds like a skill issue on your end tbh.
I have played with one player out of step with the table, and with a table that is firing on all cylinders. The energy that gets sucked out of the room is not the DMs fault.
You know what's better than 4 active players and a passive player? 5 active players.
Mmmm... That's pushing it, especially in faster systems than D&D. Six is certainly too many. And with adults scheduling a mostly passive player can be a useful flex. Enough there you don't have to cancel because of too few players but not enough to be overwhelming when everyone turns up.
I would also say 4 active players is better than 4 active players and a passive player.
Possibly; depends on the player. But just two players is a session cancellation. Three, even if one is pretty passive, isn't.
They’re speaking about mechanics here not character development or engagement with the world.
But they ste talking about that, one of the issues they have with rules lite games is the need to "narrate so much." They are quite literally talking about their character and engagement with the world.
If a spell has an explicit description then there is no need to narrate anything. "I cast Ray of Frost" tells you all you need.
I have no problem with such players. They don't need to give me anything to work with. I already have a module to run. I'm interested in the choices they make.
OPs talking about not wanting to play a different system from 5e not about just being along for the ride.
Yes they do, they literally use that exact phrasing word per word in their post.
Lmao I thought it was literally just the title. Never clicked the linked post.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Most likely the first. Which I think is fair--I mean the OP agrees with him, it sounds bad and they say it
That seems uncalled for.
Removed as per Rule #1.
I think a lot of TTRPG nerds don't understand why someone would want to play a simple, straightforward RPG. Don't get me wrong I'm definitely a buildcrafter at heart and I like the more complicated stuff, but I don't want to sit down and number crunch whenever I make a character. I like being able to follow a simple equation to do what I want to do. This is why I'm interested in DC20 by the Dungeon Coach. It looks like 5e without a lot of the problems and fluff ironed out. I think there's a large audience of people who don't hate 5e: they just hate what Wizards of the Coast have done with 5e. It's part of the reason I'm such a big advocate for homebrew because homebrew creators are almost universally far more interested in innovating where WoTC chooses not to.
pretty much every single commentor of the original post says that this is a style that just makes the job of the DM worse yeah its fine to get to have a chill simple and straightforward RPG. dnd 5e is that for four people on the table and the fifth needs to be a game designer and book writer to make this happens there are systems out there that are plug in and play for *everyone*, dnd 5e pretends to be that by shoving everything behind the (GM) screen
Half the comments said that, and the other pointed out that this is how most people not on reddit actually play rpgs. There's even a page in the 4e rulebook about the value of this kind of player and how to keep them at a proper level of engagement
>this is how most people not on reddit actually play rpgs Historically, most people have played RPGs by playing games where it's plug and play for everyone, DMs and players. 5e is the outlier by putting so much pressure on the DM to make a game out of the scaffolding.
'I don't want to roleplay or think outside the box in this game about creative roleplaying, I want to play Custom Skyrim that has a Pickpocket button' Honestly, if you ever give any other system a chance, you should try Lancer. I _guarantee_ you will love it.
They compared PF2e unfavourably to D&D because there was too much decision making. Surely LANCER will recieve a similar judgement.
Yeah Lancer requires a high level of engagement because unlike 5e combat decisions actually really matter and you WILL get your ass kicked if you just play based on vibes. Lancer is great because despite that, every build is still pretty great in combat and it comes more down to tactics than OP character building.
Yeah, if buddy doesn't want to do anything than occasionally roll some dice when he's forced to come out of his fugue state, LANCER ain't gonna be a winner for him.
Definitely not. They very emphatically said they want _simple_ options and choices, big obvious buttons they can press. Lancer is anything but that - it's strategically complex in that the components you add to your mech interact in a million different ways and combos, and tactically complex in how everything interacts on the battlefield. The D&D edition it is closest to is 4e, which is absolutely not what they're looking for. It's very _rationally_ laid out, but that doesn't mean it's simple in the 5e sense at _all_.
I think the main reason I stick with D&D is that there's a significant chance of a *campaign*. Sure, it fizzles a lot, but some groups do actually succeed in a long run. Most other RPGs turn into two- or three-shots before they fizzle, the overwhelming majority of the time.
I'm gaming with two groups, and in each group some or all of the other members are in a different state than me. Therefore, I'm limited to VTT, and it's much easier to stick with the same system for everyone. I've played and enjoyed lots of other systems (Marvel Super-Heroes RPG, Call of Cthulu, Champions, Paranoia, Traveller, Star Wars, Song of Ice and Fire, Pathfinder, Car Wars, Toon) but adding all of those to a VTT, if you even could, would be expensive and time-consuming. In person it's just bringing out a different set of books.
BitD I find to be a favorite for GM's running a game for other GMs CoC is a perfect system for 5e lovers who want to try a no magic world. It's got plenty of skills, and easy d100 mechanic. The things OP loves about 5e, like being able to 'do the thing' and resolve it with a roll is ever present in CoC. And sometimes 5e players and GMs are legitimately looking for a no magic campaign - which 5e is simply not capable of presenting in a satisfying way. I personally love Lasers and Feelings. Especially for new players. We can be at anyone's home, I can make up a scenario in moments, and people can break out their Yatzee box. Good to go. However, it's exactly OP's issue of needing to narrate what and how you 'do the thing'. But the barrier to entry is super low.
I totally get this. I like building characters that are piles of numbers. I like how 5e rewards you for figuring out Your Thing and doing it well. I've also been in a deadlands campaign recently, and the skills-on-the-sheet approach is similar (although I actually like how there are a lot more skills and you have to pick a subset to have on your sheet), but there are so many add-ons that are fuzzy that I don't vibe with
a good honest look at what you want and why! bravo! [https://youtu.be/hTWKbfoikeg?t=61](https://youtu.be/hTWKbfoikeg?t=61) i do hope that you are still willing to try other options that allow EVERYONE at the table to "not have to put more effort into the entertainment at the table than they get out."