What kind of game do you run?
I have traditionally run a campaign-style game composed of perhaps two parts storytelling, two parts hack 'n slash, and one part exploring. I like developing a general world in which the characters exist, where events and stories are occurring which will influence the group, and which they can meaningfully influence in return. I will say with a laugh that not every story line turns out as I originally expect! While many the themes and ideas are set from the start of a campaign, I also try and develop unique content based on input and ideas from players as well. In most campaigns, characters start as "babies", but will have the opportunity over time to become people of significance in the campaign itself, even prime movers in its events. In a way, I would compare my game to writing a novel; but instead of just a single author, there is a group of them, each providing some unique input to the eventual story.
I used the term "traditionally" because a large-scale adaption of Dwarven Forge gaming terrain has radically changed both what I can do and how I can do it. When I began playing D&D, we didn't even have miniatures; we'd use some d6 on an open table-top to sometimes imply positions, but it was entirely "theatre of the mind". Now I can build dungeons in complete detail, almost as though they were movie sets, even using the physical structures themselves to help tell the story. It's incredibly cool, but it also inherently is causing a shift of emphasis, making gaming sessions more "tabletop" oriented. Since I can't just throw down a complex and detailed setup in three minutes because the group decided to do something unexpected, it does make the game a little less spontaneous and a little more deliberate. I'm still just as good at improvising as I've always been, but now when I have preparation time, the things I can do are (I think) worth the effort.
Finally, a tip into the mind of the GM. D&D is a group game. I believe a good D&D game is not based on individual characters with game-beating abilities, but on a group of players able to think and work together to overcome challenges. I believe it's more fun as a group to figure things out rather than just play a "Get Out of Jail, Free" card, and to know things were NOT handed to you on a silver platter. And I think the game is at its best when each player knows their character matters and contributes to making the group greater than merely the sum of its parts.
How is your system different from 5.0?
Well, not so much. All the basic concepts are the same; if you have played any version of D&D before, you will recognize everything with no confusion. Most actions are d20-based in the traditional style. Character classes, attribute scores, armor class, hit points, "to hit" rolls, combat modifiers, saving throws, skill levels, memorizing spells, all the basic concepts are present and will fundamentally work as you think they will.
What does change in some (many?) cases is how those numbers are derived. To illustrate, two good examples are that weapons have an armor class value, and body armor adds hit points. These are both changes to the system, but they don't add anything you haven't seen before, and it doesn't change the way you do anything.
On the other hand, I'd describe my game as more generally "vanilla" than the current model. One difference is that I'm a bit more conservative about character races, as there are a few things that just don't fit the world as I see it. Another is that you won't find any list of feats, meta-skills, or system-busing abilities, whether in character creation or in class progression. This is a function of my philosophy, discussed below, regarding rule-playing systems. Players should understand this doesn't mean such abilities don't exist, but rather they exist at the GM's discretion. This distinction isn't a technicality, it's the heart of the issue.
What really makes my game different, however, is that it's run by a GM, not by a set of text books. This doesn't mean there are no rules, but it does mean that their details are not public purvey, and for a reason. There are things players need to know, which I try hard to fully provide, but there are others they don't. Good play (at least to me) is about intelligent thinking, not about taking advantage of a system, and I refuse to let rules override or negate common sense. Above all, I encourage players not to ask "what do the rules let me do?", but rather, "what does it make sense for my character to do?".
It's the player's job to play, it's the GM's job to adjudicate. When everyone does their job, it's a lot of fun.
Why not just run 5.0?
The easiest answer to this question is “because it sucks and produces bad players”, but that answer is neither intelligent or helpful. A proper answer is complicated.
I was originally introduced to the game in 1978, my freshman year in college, right as first edition Advanced Dungeons and Dragons was being released. I started as a GM about a year later. The game then was a vastly different creature than it was now, it is much like comparing an old Ford Model-T to a modern Ferrari. More like a horse and buggy to that Ferrari if you go back to the original Dungeons and Dragons pamphlets, published in 1974. Although AD&D was a big step forward compared to its parent, both presentations shared a philosophy: they were games of ideas, not of rules. The whole idea was to use what you wanted and make up the rest, but it also meant the game was entirely in the hands of the individual GM and his or her interpretations.
Over time, a lot has changed, starting with what I would call the “principles of fantasy” themselves. Where there were once a limited number of fairly iconic concepts, the range and variety of what a fantasy world can or should be has exploded in recent decades, as first literature, then movies, and finally computer games have multiplied the number of ideas and interpretations beyond counting. While this has the advantage of offering a whole range of new opportunities from a player standpoint, it also potentially brings a whole new range of undesirable or unwanted options to a GM.
Professional football coach Bill Parcells once uttered an immortal line which I shall paraphrase – “If you want me to do the cooking, then let me buy the groceries”. It isn’t that many ideas aren’t good in and of themselves, but I don’t think a GM should have concepts forced upon him or her against their desires. Tolkien’s world and Harry Potter’s are both fantasy, and both very good fantasy, but they are very different D&D games. A certain race, class, or concept may work very well in one fantasy setting, but no so much in another, and in particular may not be consistent with a potential GM’s idea or interpretations.
While the range of D&D concepts has expanded, the “rules” of the game have also repeatedly metamorphized. I’ve seen between five and seven versions of D&D, depending exactly on how you want to count, and an uncountable number of other role-playing games that have come and gone over more than 40 years. All have good points and drawbacks, although in many cases which is which depends on the underlying opinions of the gamer! But each repetition has presented me with the same dilemma. I was already having great success running a game I really enjoyed and was now being asked to adopt new rules or procedures, not so much because they made the game “better” but more often because someone wanted to sell books.
Because I was raised on the concept of “use what you want”, I was always happy to use any new idea I liked and had no intention of doing things I didn’t, and so there was never a “tyranny of the rules” concept for me as a GM. You publish what you want, and I’ll do what I want, that’s fair. If my players like my game, then the measurement of success is achieved regardless of what system or even what game is being played.
In the end, I guess I’ve just become so damn opinionated that I have to do things my own way. Of course, if the parts I disagree with are the very elements you as a player find desirable, then you may end up rejecting my game the same way I reject 5.0! Seems fair to me, everyone’s entitled to an opinion. But Bill Parcells was right.
What in 5.0 do you object to?
What follows are only examples. I am more than happy to discuss any of them at greater length and detail.
1. Skill System
The current edition of D&D uses the worst skill system I have ever seen in my lifetime of playing RPGs, and I don't say that lightly -- I've seen some bad ones. First complaint, the list of skills themselves is simply inadequate, particularly if you want to run anything more than published pre-set modules (more on them later!). Second complaint, the expression of skills solely through attribute bonuses makes no sense. Consider Athletics; many activities are clearly dexterity-determined, but if you have an 11 strength, you suck at EVERYTHING athletic. Third complaint, the expression of experience as a "proficiency bonus" which applies universally to selected skills with no differentiation regardless of character activity (or desire) isn't just bad, it seems mentally lazy. It doesn't seem to reflect real skill progression, and seems designed to fit a game world of independent modules rather than long-run continuity.
This is especially disappointing because there are (and in the past, have been) so many other game systems out there with terrific skill system rules that the designers of the current game could have emulated. Even old D&D systems had better rules than this one.
2. Class Abilities
Put simply, there are too many class abilities I either don't really need, or have serious objections to.
Clerical domains are a good example of the first, something I don't need. It doesn't fit the religious contexts my games have traditionally used, and if I wanted it I feel I could design a better list. What I don't need is seven ways to differentiate a cleric when I've only got one in my game. If my cleric needs a certain ability in order to function logically, then they'll get it, but I don't need a pre-determined list that doesn't match those needs in the first place.
This isn't so much a flaw in the game as a flaw in the game I desire to run as a GM. As I noted, Tolkien and Harry Potter are different game worlds with different requirements, and a good set of rules for one won't fit the other quite so well. Again, no criticism of either is intended, but it illustrates that the rules a GM needs are relative to the fantasy world he or she envisions. And since the level of effort and preparation for running a game is not insignificant, I think every GM has the right to run what they want.
Then there are things I object to inherently from a system standpoint. There's actually a substantial list, both from classes and from races in 5.0, but I will here present just a single example -- the concept of Evasion. Let me get this right: Maldraconius, the greatest red dragon known on the Prime Material plane, swoops down over the city and lets loose with his fiery breath. It's hot enough to melt the stone of the castle walls.
The 20th level barbarian dies -- not even he has that many hit points. The 20th level cleric dies -- not even he can heal that much damage so fast. The 20th level mage dies -- not even her mighty arcane power can deflect the dragon's wrath.
But the 6th level rogue hides under a mailbox, makes a saving throw, and lives.
Yeah.
Sorry, if that's your idea of a good rule, then we just don't have anything to talk about.
3. Races and racial abilities.
This is in part a subjective complaint, again based on the thesis that there are may great fantasy ideas, but not all are going to work in the world I envision. Dragonborn serves as an ideal example. It's a great heroic fantasy concept, especially for book, movie, or gaming platforms. My problem is in the D&D world as I see it, dragons don't go around having sex with humans, and certainly not enough to justify considering their offspring a common racial class. If I choose to build a special campaign around one, that's fine, but these creatures just aren't a "normal" part of a campaign as I see it.
At a deeper level, though, I am also distressed by the tendency for racial abilities to over-proliferate, based in part on that need to satisfy ever more iconic fantasy concepts. Since much of the 5.0 game is about "rule advantages", the expression of racial abilities naturally expands in the same way. The more races you want to have, the more separate little advantages they all need to have, and again the racial choice for a new character is more about the advantage gained than the "character" being created. Being guilty of this very sin myself, I don't know if it can, or should, be prevented, but I'd rather racial identity be about more than which one gains a certain advantage. I think it also needs to be about campaign context, and a player who wants to play a nonhuman character needs to be on the same page as the GM regarding what that stereotype (because all nonhuman characters are stereotypes, and hence humans that aren't) exactly is.
Much of my thinking is presented in the Character Creation section.
4. The Monster Manual and Need to Know
Over many years of playing D&D, I've come to the conclusion that it's a better game when characters don't have a priori knowledge of every monster, its strengths and weaknesses, advantages and vulnerabilities. Part of the "wonder" of the game is figuring out mysteries, and it's way more interesting when players learn by playing, not by reading a handbook. I learned D&D by largely memorizing the 1st edition books during college summer break. This immediately made me an expert, and helped make me a good (I hope) GM, but it also took away a portion of that "joy of discovery" which forms a significant portion of the game. It's interesting precisely because you don't know, and you have to figure it out.
I have also discovered that from a GM's standpoint, players with too much a priori knowledge of creatures and situations interferes with one of the most important things that makes the game fun for me, and that's storytelling. I want to tell my own stories, not one whose purposes and parameters are determined by someone else. If that means a creature should be level X, not Y, or have ability A instead of B, then that's what I want, and I don't care how someone else does it. Providing some information about monsters is exciting, providing every detail of their existence just destroys the value of mystery. It even destroys entire adventure ideas -- why travel to find the hermit who knows the monster's secret weakness if you can read it in Monster Manual?
There is also a pragmatic element to this decision, that being my figure collection. While it is large (over 1500 characters and creatures and still growing), I don't have a figure for every creature in the manual. I also have a lot of miniatures that that aren't in the manual. Since the visual impact of terrain setup is one of my important goals, I'm obviously not going to be using monsters I don't have figures for, and instead need to get the greatest mileage I can out of those I have. In a "perfect world" campaign, by the time characters reach "the end" of the campaign, they'll have encountered every figure I have somewhere along the line (otherwise, why have them?). That means that I want to be able to spread them out and use them when and where I need them, not where some text says they belong.
In the end, it turns out the Monster Manual isn't a helpful play aid, it's a set of shackles that prevents me from telling a story the way I want to tell.
5. The Nature of Game Play
Nothing reveals what game designers think more than adventure modules. After all, these provide a clear example of what the designers think is "good" game play.
In a particular current 5.0 published module, there is a point where first level characters encounter a dragon. The module expects the first level characters to fight the dragon; it turns out that inflicting a small amount of damage will drive it away, since the dragon isn't really interested in the area anyway. Notably, the module does not allow for any response from the characters except to fight the dragon -- there are no other alternatives covered in the text.
I find this difficult to understand. Unless we assume the GM would never put us in an actually dangerous situation, the idea of even encountering a dragon as a first level character, much less shooting arrows at the beastie, should be almost incomprehensible. Forget technical issues like fear auras, monumental dragon ego, or the odds a first level character with a non-magical bow and arrow can actually hit a dragon in flight in the first place. When my first-level character was asked by the GM what I did in this situation, my answer was "shit my armor and find anywhere to hide where I can't see it". I'm sorry that wasn't what the module anticipated, but it seemed to me the obvious and only correct answer.
It just seems to me that if a player as a first level character isn't afraid of a dragon, then there isn't much else to ever worry about beyond that point. It's fine for a "fight everything you see because characters always win" approach, but I actually want characters to know there is stuff that will kill them if they don't occasionally think before acting. I'm not looking to lay waste to my player characters, but bad decisions deserve their just rewards and the world shouldn't be free for the taking.
One example, true story: I had one campaign (all good friends who should have known better!) where characters had just reached fourth level, and found a cave with a sign that said "Dragon lives here". They figured, "well, Kim wouldn't put this here if we weren't supposed to go in", so they went in. Um, wrong. The dragon ate them all and we rolled up new characters that night. The gang wasn't happy, but they knew whose fault that was.
A Sly Final Observation
I think it's probably the case that any game is in trouble when it's Player's Book is thicker than it's GameMaster's book.