Unpopular D&D Opinions

[BloodSquirrel]

Mechanically, that's true. I think the point with games like Fate is that the "meaning" and "interest" should get pushed to the level of plot and the effects/side effects/etc. IOW, the point isn't that it's mechanically different and more interesting - it's that punching someone is a different action and has different and interesting results in comparison to fixing a car.

That's the general idea, but it takes a lot of effort and energy on the part of the DM and the players to keep that going. By default, the "interesting results" of fixing a car are either that it runs now or it doesn't. You can come up with more interesting variations (You rolled well to fix this part so it works, but you rolled poorly to fix this part, so it'll break down again in ten miles), but that's work for the DM to do that a "vehicle maintenance" set of rules could be doing for him.

Not everything can have its own subsystem of rules, but having at least a few helps out a lot. Maybe you don't always need to track encumbrance, but that one time that you do, it's nice to have a table with some guidelines.

[kyoryu]

That's the general idea, but it takes a lot of effort and energy on the part of the DM and the players to keep that going. By default, the "interesting results" of fixing a car are either that it runs now or it doesn't. You can come up with more interesting variations (You rolled well to fix this part so it works, but you rolled poorly to fix this part, so it'll break down again in ten miles), but that's work for the DM to do that a "vehicle maintenance" set of rules could be doing for him.

Well, I'd go with:

a) it works
b) you need something to get it to work (parts, equipment, expertise, etc.)
c) it works, but not well (flaky, reduced performance)
d) you need more time to get it to work
e) it doesn't work. Figure something else out.

And sure, a set of possible results could be useful (which I'd say is slightly different than a "vehicle repair subsystem"). But having one of those for everything can be a toooon of things.

Personally I like to think in generalized terms of risk/cost - time, materials, connections, physical risk, etc. It's pretty easy, in most cases, to start with this generalized list and come up with some specific downsides for your situation.

But really, I'd say ultimately it just depends on where your game focuses - if resolving the scene/question is the interesting bit, then you'll want a variety of mechanical systems that have sufficient depth and complexity to be fun to engage with on their own (a lot of times these presume everything should be "beatable"). If the results of the resolution are really the interesting bit, that's a different set of design criteria (these types of games often assume that you shouldn't beat everything, and things shouldn't always go your way)

[MoiMagnus]

I agree with this one actually. D&D should be using the Metric system. A good oportunity for those who don't use it to start learning it.

I think I disagree with you.

I'm only in favour of metric because that's the system I use in my everyday life, and I consider that for the same reason I should not have to learn an additional language to play a TTRPG, I should not have to learn a measurement system either. I'd rather be learning some other more relevant worldbuilding information (like the local cultures, etc).

For me, imperial system is a mess and I always need to convert back to metric in my head when I want to "understand" with my real-life intuitions. Otoh, since the main demographic that WotC targets is the USA, I don't think it would be right for them to use metric. (Ignoring potential political agenda, I'm talking game-design here, not whether a company should try to influence its audience)

I'll grudgingly cede any sci-fi should use SI. But base 10 / decimal in a fantasy system always seems out of place. Even D&Ds coinage doesn't feel right.

For taking more fantasy-like measure, I find that Ancient Roman units (wikipedia) measure have a good balance of practical & fantastical feeling.

In particular, the Roman passus is almost exactly 5 imperial ft, so that's a great basis for measure as most D&D editions have lengths multiple of 5ft.
You then have the stadium for 120 passus, and the mille passus for 8 stadia (or 1000 passus, or almost and imperial mile).

[Mordar]

The more that is defined, the more HOW you do things matters.

Consider, D&D has 3 stats for "Persuasion", "Deception" and "Intimidation", representing three modes of social interaction.

Call of Cthulu has "Charm" "Fast Talk" "Intimidate" "Persuade"

Splitting the simple "Diplomacy" into "Charm" and "Persuade" means that HOW you are trying to get somebody to do something becomes relevant. Whether you are trying to convince them with reason, or just get them to like you and do you a favor.

I'd argue this makes Call of Cthulu better than D&D at modeling social interactions, since there are more mechanical "Hooks" to differentiate different approaches, vs D&D, where it mostly just comes down to "Make a Persuasion Roll".

The same principle applies for Rules Light vs Rules Heavy systems. Crunchier systems have their downsides, and maybe have the ability to model fewer total actions, but they can meaningfully engage with more things.

CoC brought much more granularity to virtually all elements of the "game" (roughly defined here as "skill use to achieve things") than (A)D&D. I'd argue, as a big Chaosium fan in general and CoC fan in particular, that it made CoC better at modelling almost everything.* Still, that doesn't make it a better system. Just a better system for investigational games where combat is usually a net-loss option and death is a much more likely outcome for the heroes.

I'm not sure I'm following that crunchier systems maybe can't model as many actions as less-crunchy systems. That seems a more...I don't know...explicit rules vs. non-explicit rules kind of thing? RoleMaster (another of my favorites) was pretty crunchy...but could model most everything I could remember us ever throwing at it.

- M

* - Magic is something of an exclusion...each game used a radically different type of magic from the other, so they don't compare well. Clearly (A)D&D had much more granularity and option in the Magic sphere, and CoC didn't contemplate kindly old world-shaper Magic Users.

[Easy e]

Well, I'd go with:

a) it works
b) you need something to get it to work (parts, equipment, expertise, etc.)
c) it works, but not well (flaky, reduced performance)
d) you need more time to get it to work
e) it doesn't work. Figure something else out.

Once the group have established which of those things were true, you could take it one more "What makes this more interesting?" step to crank up or reduce the difficulty of the game as needed. For example, if the vehicle needs to be working to move the plot along, you might use B and just rule out E all together for a bad roll.

The more rules sub-systems exist, the more the GM is bound by what the "realities" of the game mechanics place on them. The players may know the sub-system of the rules and feel like they rolled an E result, but you give them a B result and this causes dissonance for the player. Sub-systems give the GM less ability to tailor the adventure to the needs of the session/players.

*************

The point about new GMs needing more structures to help decision making is a good point. Kudos, I sadly do not recall who made it at the moment. That leads into one of my biases, since I have GMed a few games and prefer less of those structures now; but when I first started I would have relied on those more.

[BRC]

I'm not sure I'm following that crunchier systems maybe can't model as many actions as less-crunchy systems. That seems a more...I don't know...explicit rules vs. non-explicit rules kind of thing? RoleMaster (another of my favorites) was pretty crunchy...but could model most everything I could remember us ever throwing at it.

- M

It's very much an Explicit Rules vs Non-Explicit Rules kind of thing.

Consider the following system:

All characters have the following three stats:
Body: All physical tasks
Brain: All mental tasks
Speech: All Social tasks
Allocate a total of 25 points between the three stats to build a character.

To resolve a test, roll 1d20+ the appropriate stat, depending on if the action in question is Physical, Mental, or Social.
If a task has multiple components, split it into separate tests, one for each relevant stat.
If the result of your roll meets or exceeds the target number, you succeed.

This system can theoretically model any potential action, simply because any action can reasonably fall into one of those three categories with a bit of thought, and, since the rules are so generic, it's hard to find something that they CANNOT handle, because the rules explicitly cover everything.

Now, consider something like this classic scenario: You are fighting a vampire, and want to stab a stake into it's heart, buffy style.

The above simple system would call that a straightforward Body Check, albeit a difficult one for hitting a small target.


D&D 5e has no rules for called shots. While Vampires have stats, their rules explicitly call for driving a stake into their hearts while they are in their resting place. A buffy-style Combat Staking, despite being reasonably feasible (And well within the fictional domain D&D operates in) doesn't have any good way to model it.

"Attacking somebody in a precise manner" is modeled as a Sneak Attack, but that implies that only Rogues can stake a Vampire, and even then only when they have advantage or an ally nearby. Buffy, despite her supernatural combat skills, can't stake a vampire unless she's explicitly a rogue.
"An attack in an especially vulnerable location" is modeled as a Critical Hit, but that tells us that Buffy can't actually CONTROL when she stakes a vamp, she just has to keep rolling until she gets a 20. 95% of her attacks are just stabbing the vampire elsewhere.

Even if we get that worked out, while the Vampire statblock has rules for staking a vampire, they explicitly call out staking an incapacitated vampire in it's resting place. A staking mid-combat does nothing special beyond damage dealt by a nonmagical improvised weapon.


Because the system already models things like Attacking and Attacking precise weak points in ways that don't neatly map to staking a vampire, we can't just assume that "Staking a vampire" falls into one of those categories.


It's possible to build a system capable of modeling this and more by explicitly outlining rules for every potential action, but a highly generalized system like the one above does so by Default.

[Anonymouswizard]

Honestly, every game should probably include a set of conversion tables clearly marked, although I'll note give up on the idea that anything at in the modern age or later should use SI. But I've played systems roughly converted from US units to SI and everything worked perfectly fine once we'd written the values on our sheets.

But that's the other reason I don't like using US units, I get them confused with Imperial units. And covering between the two is orders of magnitude more annoying than converting between either and SI because even when units differ they have the same names.

But the short answer is that at the end of the day when calculations come up they're much easier in SI. Which is to me why it's a must for science fiction games, whereas they can be tolerated (if not enjoyed) in fantasy or historical games. Just let me shift place values instead of having to multiply by weird values.

Side note: I'm also starting to get annoyed at systems that always round down. Be brave, round mathematically! It's not like it's more difficult.

[Cluedrew]

I find that rules-light, free-form systems require more effort to learn and get comfortable with for brand new players. And less focused means there's less scaffolding to fall back on when you're not sure. This is especially true for new DMs.

Would you say the same thing about rules that effect a character's personality and decision making? That actually what this sub-topic is about. Admittedly it started on page 6 and might be averaging less than one post per page since then; very easy to loose track of.

The other big thing is that D&D (5e particularly) is actually a whole lot more flexible than people give it credit for.

I mean the two other games I want to run the most right now are Blades in the Dark and Lancer. Lancer, having roots in 4th edition, does have a lot of overlap with sci-fi D&D, but not enough I think you could just use D&D in its place. Blades in the Dark, being a heist game set in a clockwork city with ghosts, is incompatible with D&D's assumptions in about 4 different ways. I'm not even sure D&D could even handle a good survival and travel campaign as well it used to. So yeah, I'm not sure how flexible you think I think it is, but I can think of lots of things I would like to do in role-playing games D&D doesn't handle.

High Fantasy Adventure is enduringly popular because (IMO)

This all makes sense but does that actually make D&D more flexible? Is this support for your last point or something else?

[Kymme]

The other big thing is that D&D (5e particularly) is actually a whole lot more flexible than people give it credit for. Sure, it expects that there will be combat. So if you want to do a campaign with little or no combat, there are probably better ones out there. And it expects magic and generally larger-than-life heroes, so if you want a "grounded" or "realistic" game, there are better ones out there. But most of the time (in my experience)? Those are acquired tastes. New people often don't want that sort of thing (again, in my experience working with new people)

High Fantasy Adventure is enduringly popular because (IMO)
a) it's a power fantasy, letting people pretend to be stronger than they are
b) the goals and themes are nearly universally accessible--the clash between good and evil, monsters, powers, etc. It's easy to understand "There's a threat, we can remove the threat with fire and sword"; esoteric or philosophical debates...not so much.
c) it's not real life. A lot of people play this sort of game to escape from reality. In many ways. The shy, tiny 8th grader wants to play something big and fierce. The bullied teen wants to play the hero. The kid who feels he has no control over his life, who feels locked in a cage of other people's wills wants to play the wanderer, able to go anywhere and see anything[1]. They don't have to worry about real-world moral codes or offending real-life people. Nuance and thorny moral debates can receed...as much as the party wants. There actually can be clear-cut villains and monsters. And those monsters can be defeated. It's much harder to slay real-life "demons" of whatever shape they may take.

[1] Note: these are drawn directly from real experiences playing in a high-school club environment. Being able to escape the here and now was a huge reason the club was popular. Being able to play someone else, who doesn't have your limits, in a world and setting where hitting back or standing up for the innocent (or whatever) is actually rewarded was a major draw. Having an escape from the stresses of parental and social pressure, from having to worry about what people thought was a blessed relief. And the same goes for the adults I've played with.

Interestingly, this post also makes a pretty effective pitch for Fellowship and Fellowship 2e . It has all the things you've mentioned here, does violent and non-violent conflict resolution equally well, is about playing larger-than-life heroes of might and magic, and is built from the ground up to do 'High Fantasy Adventure.' If those are all things you're after, than Fellowship might be just the right fit for you! I'd heartily recommend it alongside D&D for fantasy heroics and adventuring.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Would you say the same thing about rules that effect a character's personality and decision making? That actually what this sub-topic is about. Admittedly it started on page 6 and might be averaging less than one post per page since then; very easy to loose track of.

In some ways. Each part of the system needs different levels of scaffolding. Something like, say, combat, which has lots of intricacies and character-level risks (in D&D) and which is not so familiar to most people, needs lots of scaffolding (at least for me). Personality, being at the near-to-the-player and being relatively individual, needs lots less scaffolding. Same with decision-making. In fact, my personal preference for those is to leave them almost entirely up to the players and have as few rules as possible.

For a different game which was focused around those personalities and interactions, it might need lots more scaffolding. But that's not D&D.

I mean the two other games I want to run the most right now are Blades in the Dark and Lancer. Lancer, having roots in 4th edition, does have a lot of overlap with sci-fi D&D, but not enough I think you could just use D&D in its place. Blades in the Dark, being a heist game set in a clockwork city with ghosts, is incompatible with D&D's assumptions in about 4 different ways. I'm not even sure D&D could even handle a good survival and travel campaign as well it used to. So yeah, I'm not sure how flexible you think I think it is, but I can think of lots of things I would like to do in role-playing games D&D doesn't handle.

D&D is not generic, but it's also not only a dungeon-crawler-with-nothing-else (like seems to be the "Hot Take" on these forums). There are a lot of things that I wouldn't use D&D for. Anything sci-fi or "realistic", for instance. The themes and structures don't really work and you'd have to rip out all the content and redo it from scratch, which is a waste. But there are a lot of things you can use it for...especially for the course of a campaign arc (ie smaller than a campaign). You can do mystery arcs without too much issue. You can do politics arcs without too much issue. You can do swashbuckling arcs without issue. You can do research-driven arcs without too much issue.

D&D (5e particularly) can dabble in a lot of areas that aren't its specialty. If any of those areas is the dominant focus of the campaign, you probably want to look elsewhere for a system that specializes in it. But it's not incapable of handling bits of those that come up. Character-focused arcs? Great. I'd not run a high-school drama game (ie Monsterhearts) using it, but if character-focused stuff comes up frequently, that's fine.

My big point there was that the "all dungeon-crawling and combat, all the time" attitude undersells D&D pretty heavily. It hasn't been a primary dungeon-crawler since...1e? Even starting at Dragonlance there were more narrative-driven emphases.

This all makes sense but does that actually make D&D more flexible? Is this support for your last point or something else?

That was kinda separate. That was more related to the "D&D does Heroic Fantasy by default not because it's limited, but because that's a huge target market that works for lots of people" point, plus the "it's a good starter system" point. Basically, the reason that people often start (and end) in D&D is because its core concept (Heroic High Fantasy) coincides with what they want to do. And is quite accessible because of the nature of the sub-genre. Unlike games where you have to build a common language and imagery around these more detailed concepts or where you have to do a lot of labor just to get a functioning setting (anything more abstract and generic), D&D leans on Heroic High Fantasy's already present and easily-accessible trope content. Say "ok, a paladin is a knight in shining armor" or "demons are evil" and most of the work is done. The more "differentiated" or abstract systems have to do all of that hard work themselves. Even things like Vampire and Werewolf (in all editions) have to break out of the "common thoughts about vampires and werewolves", which provides friction (especially for new players). D&D says "yeah, that's basically ok. Small differences, but we'll figure those out as we go." Which makes it a nice easy starter point. And would do so even without the marketing budget.

[Pex]

They also do a better job of making different actions feel different. In Fate, punching someone feels exactly like fixing your car. In Shadowrun, hacking feels nothing like shooting somebody. It's a distinct rule-set with its own systems and trade-offs.

Pushing everything into a single framework makes it easier to learn, but it also sucks the flavor out of everything.

Oh, like 4E.


Also, I see everyone's meters vs feet and raise you hexes or squares. Go!

[Hytheter]

Also, I see everyone's meters vs feet and raise you hexes or squares. Go!

Good for mechanics but terrible for immersion.

[Telok]

Good for mechanics but terrible for immersion.

I see your immersion and raise you square Fireballs & "if this spell is so fast and easy to cast that I can cast it as a bonus action then why can't I cast it as a normal action?"

[MoiMagnus]

Oh, like 4E.


Also, I see everyone's meters vs feet and raise you hexes or squares. Go!

Good for mechanics but terrible for immersion.

Only because 4e didn't take the time to give them an in-universe name, like "passus":

In particular, the Roman passus is almost exactly 5 imperial ft, so that's a great basis for measure as most D&D editions have lengths multiple of 5ft.

[Hytheter]

I see your immersion and raise you square Fireballs & "if this spell is so fast and easy to cast that I can cast it as a bonus action then why can't I cast it as a normal action?"

Is your position that, because some game mechanics already strain immersion, we should therefore not bother caring about it at all?

Do you really think resolving an instantaneous fireball as the wrong shape is as credibility straining as measuring the entire world with an utterly arbitrary unit?

[Telok]

Is your position that, because some game mechanics already strain immersion, we should therefore not bother caring about it at all?

Do you really think resolving an instantaneous fireball as the wrong shape is as credibility straining as measuring the entire world with an utterly arbitrary unit?

Well ultimately all units of measurement are arbitrary. But if I hand you a wood block and claim it's a billiard ball you won't believe me. And honestly, the sillyness we got up to with 4e's pi=4 measurement system was pretty funny.

[Hytheter]

Well ultimately all units of measurement are arbitrary.

Technically true but a pedantic and worthless statement. Established units like feet and metres are ones people actually use and can understand. If I tell you that someone is 5 feet tall you can probably picture that in your head, whereas '1 square' is a nonsense measurement that means nothing to nobody. Sure, you can probably do a conversion if the size of a square is defined but why should you have to when we could have just used natural units to begin with?

[HidesHisEyes]

They also do a better job of making different actions feel different. In Fate, punching someone feels exactly like fixing your car. In Shadowrun, hacking feels nothing like shooting somebody. It's a distinct rule-set with its own systems and trade-offs.

Pushing everything into a single framework makes it easier to learn, but it also sucks the flavor out of everything.

I think PbtA games handle this well with moves. And Blades in the Dark handles it well even without moves, and it has a formalised method of setting stakes instead. Every action *would* feel the same, except the game makes you tie the dice roll into the fiction and establish the stakes so thoroughly.

I don’t think complex sub-systems are the only way to make actions interesting and differentiated.

[Anonymouswizard]

I'm fine with the square/hex being an in universe measurement, but you're going to have to tie that bank to RL units.

Also, I'm totally using it in SF settings instead of square metres notes. Spaceship's are measured in litres though

[KorvinStarmast]

For taking more fantasy-like measure, I find that Ancient Roman units (wikipedia) measure have a good balance of practical & fantastical feeling.

Or use cubits.

Established units like feet -

Or like hexes, which were a standard for war games long before D&D was published, and which informed how to create maps of the region wherein old ruins or caverns of dangerous beasties were located.

[Anonymouswizard]

Didn't 0e measure spell ranges in inches? As in real world inches, which explicitly varied in what they represented with scale.

[Xervous]

Didn't 0e measure spell ranges in inches? As in real world inches, which explicitly varied in what they represented with scale.

Virtual tabletop and pixels... now I’m tempted.

[Tanarii]

They also do a better job of making different actions feel different. In Fate, punching someone feels exactly like fixing your car. In Shadowrun, hacking feels nothing like shooting somebody. It's a distinct rule-set with its own systems and trade-offs.

Pushing everything into a single framework makes it easier to learn, but it also sucks the flavor out of everything.

Oh, like 4E.

Unpopular opinion: 4e did a great job of making every class and powers from different classes feel pretty wildly different, despite the shared framework.

They also did a decent job within classes, although there were definitely some levels when a power was pretty clearly an upgrade from an earlier levels power.

[Imbalance]

Also, I see everyone's meters vs feet and raise you hexes or squares. Go!

Both? I cast firegeodesic!

[kyoryu]

Unpopular opinion: 4e did a great job of making every class and powers from different classes feel pretty wildly different, despite the shared framework.

I agree with this.

The only things that were "samey" were that every power had at least some minor damage component, and the fact that the build chassis and resource management were the same.

But I also feel like for a lot of people the build chassis and resource management is the game. Like, how different are sorcerors and wizards in 3x? I could make an argument for "barely" and "hugely", depending on how I wanted to look at it.

[Anonymouswizard]

Unpopular opinion: every D&D book requested since the Rules Cyclopaedia has been part of a steady decrease in quality, as well as an attempt to sell everybody six copies of the player's handbook.

[Satinavian]

D&D is not generic, but it's also not only a dungeon-crawler-with-nothing-else (like seems to be the "Hot Take" on these forums). There are a lot of things that I wouldn't use D&D for. Anything sci-fi or "realistic", for instance. The themes and structures don't really work and you'd have to rip out all the content and redo it from scratch, which is a waste. But there are a lot of things you can use it for...especially for the course of a campaign arc (ie smaller than a campaign). You can do mystery arcs without too much issue. You can do politics arcs without too much issue. You can do swashbuckling arcs without issue. You can do research-driven arcs without too much issue.

D&D (5e particularly) can dabble in a lot of areas that aren't its specialty. If any of those areas is the dominant focus of the campaign, you probably want to look elsewhere for a system that specializes in it. But it's not incapable of handling bits of those that come up. Character-focused arcs? Great. I'd not run a high-school drama game (ie Monsterhearts) using it, but if character-focused stuff comes up frequently, that's fine.

My big point there was that the "all dungeon-crawling and combat, all the time" attitude undersells D&D pretty heavily. It hasn't been a primary dungeon-crawler since...1e? Even starting at Dragonlance there were more narrative-driven emphases.

Meh. You can use it for that.

But if you also have access to other crunchy traditional fantasy systems like TDE or Splittermond, D&D will do every single one of these alternative themes/arcs significantly worse. And those other games are not really specialty games for the other stuff. They are also about classical heroic fantasy most with combat having a prominent place. It is just that D&D specifically is comparably bad at this stuff from decades of active neglect. It is not just losing out against specialised games. It is also losing out against those that are equallly "generic".

This is why so many people would use D&D only for combat driven campaigns. Not because D&D can't do the rest but because other alternatives are better if you want to have a mix.

OK, another thing that D&D does and most competitors don't is high level/epic play with real worldshaping powers... but while it at least does it, it doesn't necessarily do it well.

[Tanarii]

The only things that were "samey" were that every power had at least some minor damage component, and the fact that the build chassis and resource management were the same.

My problem with the 4e resource management was the way a single given character often felt like they were using the same or close to the same 'rotation' every battle. While this was a vast improvement for traditionally "I attack" classes, it was still noticeable.

But I also feel like for a lot of people the build chassis and resource management is the game.

Yup.
Character building pr0n.

Unpopular opinion: every D&D book requested since the Rules Cyclopaedia has been part of a steady decrease in quality, as well as an attempt to sell everybody six copies of the player's handbook.

I mean, it was helped by BECM being the best D&D system to date. (Original I was terrible so left that off )

[kyoryu]

My problem with the 4e resource management was the way a single given character often felt like they were using the same or close to the same 'rotation' every battle. While this was a vast improvement for traditionally "I attack" classes, it was still noticeable.

I was really hoping for martials that they would have gone with a structure more like "lots of at-wills to be used conditionally" where the game for martials was more about picking the right at-will for the situation.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Meh. You can use it for that.

But if you also have access to other crunchy traditional fantasy systems like TDE or Splittermond, D&D will do every single one of these alternative themes/arcs significantly worse. And those other games are not really specialty games for the other stuff. They are also about classical heroic fantasy most with combat having a prominent place. It is just that D&D specifically is comparably bad at this stuff from decades of active neglect. It is not just losing out against specialised games. It is also losing out against those that are equallly "generic".

This is why so many people would use D&D only for combat driven campaigns. Not because D&D can't do the rest but because other alternatives are better if you want to have a mix.

OK, another thing that D&D does and most competitors don't is high level/epic play with real worldshaping powers... but while it at least does it, it doesn't necessarily do it well.

Both of the ones you mentioned are hard-fixed in a single setting, and one (TDE) has heavy meta-plot and is mostly run via published adventures. Hard pass. Because that's something D&D does that those don't, and it's something critical for me. D&D isn't nearly as coupled with its content. And it's actually quite flexible (5e) and modular--I can add additional subsystems that I happen to want without really messing with the core, and I can change the setting almost entirely[1] and keep the mechanics basically the same. It's not totally flexible in that regard.

But I'd strongly hesitate to call either Splittermond or TDE anything like generic. They're quite the reverse, from what I can tell. And both of them are light-years more crunchy than I want to deal with. 5e D&D is about at the high edge for that, and thankfully most of 5e's crunch is in the part that needs the most scaffolding. Combat. I neither want nor need much scaffolding for other parts, because those I can handle myself without issue and the scaffolding would force things down particular paths. A simple "here's how you resolve uncertainty if uncertainty exists and is interesting" is all I need.

Additionally (and this is an unpopular opinion) I like classes. In fact, I dislike skill-based games (for many reasons). I want strong archetypes--in fact, I think that D&D would do better if all the archetypes/classes were as strong as, say, the monk or druid or paladin. Classes-as-abstract-bundles-of-mechanics are just doing point-buy, badly.

Edit: my current world is a pastiche of 4e's cosmology, blended with influences from all over. I've actually run 4e characters as NPCs directly in my 5e game (with little bits of translation). And it worked fine. I'm not tied to anyone's ideas--I can grab ideas from all editions and make them work without substantial pain. Except 3e (mechanically), because 3e is obnoxious and annoying