DND is not a good universal game system. It’s pretty good at being DND, but that’s a particular beast that’s mostly about resource management.
You can definitely use it for a game about social intrigue, or horror, or modern day anything, but it’s not really good at any of that. Like using a hammer to put screws in, you’ll probably get something done, and if you’re hanging with your friends you’ll probably have a good time. But it’s a weird tool to reach for.
Personally, I don’t think the core of the rules system is very good at all. Flat probability feels weird. Armor as all-or-nothing is weird. Hit and damage being split into two rolls is slow and weird. In the latest edition, making very few choices about your character often feels bad. Levels are a very coarse unit of growth. The magic system somehow manages to make magic not feel like magic- no wonder, no mystery, it’s just safe and standardized. I could go on.
But it’s mega popular and people are emotionally invested, so there’s not much to be done about it. There are dozens of people playing the thousands of other games out there.
Also a lot of people have never played anything else, so their analysis and defense of it is often lacking. Like if I’ve only ever played baseball, and never even watched any other sports, I wouldn’t feel qualified to talk about bowling. But you get people saying like “no you need to wear cleats that’s a universal property of sports” when bowling comes up. Like, not every game has six stats. Not every game has attributes like that at all.
And again, if you’re having fun with dnd then that’s the primary goal achieved. We don’t need to maximize fun and efficiency in all things all times. I just think that it would be a good experience to branch out more, even if it’s scary, because that will lead to a richer experience overall.
I feel there’s plenty of interest in other RPGs if you go outside the core community. I have never been remotely interested in playing DnD, so I never got a “real RPG gamer” group, because why play anything if you can run Curse of Strahd for the 100th time.
Well, it just so happens that I got my SO to play some Mothership duet sessions with me and it was great. Then some uni friends who were fans of LOTR to play The One Ring… And now I have an ongoing TOR 2e table and a passionate duet player looking to play more horror games (we’re starting Delta Green this week). The most common reasons for these people never having played RPGs? “Too many rules and stats” or straight up “DnD is too hard”.
We sometimes talk about DnD as some sort of necessary evil, but it’s honestly a hindrance. “Normies” get pretty excited about RPGs once they learn there’s more than a fantasy setting designed to be the lowest common denominator and sell miniatures
I do believe that DND is a poor first RPG, and creates a weird survivor bias in the hobby. Because it’s so popular most people try it as their first RPG, and then some of them hate it. Some of them then think the whole hobby is like that, and then leave.
So the bulk of the people left in the hobby are people who like dnd, or at least tolerate it enough to stick around.
One of my friends has no real interest in fantasy, tactical combat (as much as DND is that), or resource management. They had no interest in DND. But they really liked Vampire.
I keep trying to get people to play fate, but all of these games struggle with finding people who will show up. Everyone seems to be just barely holding it together, and asking them to be creative and present once a week seems like a big request
Completely agree, D&D is overly crunchy and I have no interest in a tedious minis wargame in the middle of my roleplaying. The Basic system that Call of Cthulhu was based on is much easier for newcomers to understand with everything being simple percentages, and the system is open-ended enough to make combat as simple or crunchy as you would like - but either way, it’s such a better way to facilitate a roleplay gaming session. It’s just sad that the only people I know who play tabletop RPGs are so extremely invested in the D&D intellectual property that they won’t even consider anything outside of it. I could give a shit less about D&D’s worldbuilding and lore, it’s not what I love about roleplaying - it’s about the collective story we tell and the fun we had along the way.
I generally agree. For one shots, there are much slimmer systems out there.
I’m not sure I agree about splitting hit and damage feeling weird, but it definitely is slow. But overall, yeah. DnD is generally one of my least favorite systems to play in.
I’m not sure I agree about splitting hit and damage feeling weird,
It feels weird to me when you roll a really big number to hit their AC, and then roll the minimum for damage. Or the other way, where you just barely roll their AC and then roll max damage. There are narrative ways you could justify it, but I don’t see why you would want to. It’s not adding anything worth having to the experience, imo. The game doesn’t care if you beat the check by 0 or 20. It’s just an extra step and the information is discarded.
I think pf2e fixes this.
Forgot in my original: DND 5e barely has a concept of degree of success
I completely agree with that sentiment. I think the d20 itself is flawed in that it provides linear probability. I’m more a fan of 3d6 for the bell curve it provides.
When it comes to the damage, I can agree that a degree of success should play into it. I do like how white wolf systems carried the success level over into the damage roll.
DND is not a good universal game system. It’s pretty good at being DND, but that’s a particular beast that’s mostly about resource management.
You can definitely use it for a game about social intrigue, or horror, or modern day anything, but it’s not really good at any of that. Like using a hammer to put screws in, you’ll probably get something done, and if you’re hanging with your friends you’ll probably have a good time. But it’s a weird tool to reach for.
Personally, I don’t think the core of the rules system is very good at all. Flat probability feels weird. Armor as all-or-nothing is weird. Hit and damage being split into two rolls is slow and weird. In the latest edition, making very few choices about your character often feels bad. Levels are a very coarse unit of growth. The magic system somehow manages to make magic not feel like magic- no wonder, no mystery, it’s just safe and standardized. I could go on.
But it’s mega popular and people are emotionally invested, so there’s not much to be done about it. There are dozens of people playing the thousands of other games out there.
Also a lot of people have never played anything else, so their analysis and defense of it is often lacking. Like if I’ve only ever played baseball, and never even watched any other sports, I wouldn’t feel qualified to talk about bowling. But you get people saying like “no you need to wear cleats that’s a universal property of sports” when bowling comes up. Like, not every game has six stats. Not every game has attributes like that at all.
And again, if you’re having fun with dnd then that’s the primary goal achieved. We don’t need to maximize fun and efficiency in all things all times. I just think that it would be a good experience to branch out more, even if it’s scary, because that will lead to a richer experience overall.
I feel there’s plenty of interest in other RPGs if you go outside the core community. I have never been remotely interested in playing DnD, so I never got a “real RPG gamer” group, because why play anything if you can run Curse of Strahd for the 100th time.
Well, it just so happens that I got my SO to play some Mothership duet sessions with me and it was great. Then some uni friends who were fans of LOTR to play The One Ring… And now I have an ongoing TOR 2e table and a passionate duet player looking to play more horror games (we’re starting Delta Green this week). The most common reasons for these people never having played RPGs? “Too many rules and stats” or straight up “DnD is too hard”.
We sometimes talk about DnD as some sort of necessary evil, but it’s honestly a hindrance. “Normies” get pretty excited about RPGs once they learn there’s more than a fantasy setting designed to be the lowest common denominator and sell miniatures
I do believe that DND is a poor first RPG, and creates a weird survivor bias in the hobby. Because it’s so popular most people try it as their first RPG, and then some of them hate it. Some of them then think the whole hobby is like that, and then leave.
So the bulk of the people left in the hobby are people who like dnd, or at least tolerate it enough to stick around.
One of my friends has no real interest in fantasy, tactical combat (as much as DND is that), or resource management. They had no interest in DND. But they really liked Vampire.
I keep trying to get people to play fate, but all of these games struggle with finding people who will show up. Everyone seems to be just barely holding it together, and asking them to be creative and present once a week seems like a big request
Completely agree, D&D is overly crunchy and I have no interest in a tedious minis wargame in the middle of my roleplaying. The Basic system that Call of Cthulhu was based on is much easier for newcomers to understand with everything being simple percentages, and the system is open-ended enough to make combat as simple or crunchy as you would like - but either way, it’s such a better way to facilitate a roleplay gaming session. It’s just sad that the only people I know who play tabletop RPGs are so extremely invested in the D&D intellectual property that they won’t even consider anything outside of it. I could give a shit less about D&D’s worldbuilding and lore, it’s not what I love about roleplaying - it’s about the collective story we tell and the fun we had along the way.
The resource management is what made bg3 boring to play (and that’s my hill to die on).
100%
Also, it is much less fun with really experienced players that genuinely focus on min-maxing.
Also also, the rules could be much clearer and concise. 3 (expensive) books for a brand new party of noobs is a needless barrier.
I generally agree. For one shots, there are much slimmer systems out there.
I’m not sure I agree about splitting hit and damage feeling weird, but it definitely is slow. But overall, yeah. DnD is generally one of my least favorite systems to play in.
Clearly in the game system the quality of the hit impacts damage…just only in 5% of cases. Is a little odd.
It feels weird to me when you roll a really big number to hit their AC, and then roll the minimum for damage. Or the other way, where you just barely roll their AC and then roll max damage. There are narrative ways you could justify it, but I don’t see why you would want to. It’s not adding anything worth having to the experience, imo. The game doesn’t care if you beat the check by 0 or 20. It’s just an extra step and the information is discarded.
I think pf2e fixes this.
Forgot in my original: DND 5e barely has a concept of degree of success
I completely agree with that sentiment. I think the d20 itself is flawed in that it provides linear probability. I’m more a fan of 3d6 for the bell curve it provides.
When it comes to the damage, I can agree that a degree of success should play into it. I do like how white wolf systems carried the success level over into the damage roll.