Over the last few decades, my taste in TTRPGs have shifted heavily to more narrative games. Recently, I’ve been playing Fate Accelerated, Forged in the Dark, and similar games. The more cinematic versions of Modiphius’s 2d20 system, with it’s well-balanced Threat/Momentum economy hit a sweet spot for me, balancing narrative-focused play with just the right amount of crunch. I’ve been enjoying the heck out of Vampire 5e and Scion 2e (though it often feels like Scion has a bit too much going on—and gameplay may be better if the rules were better streamlined).
However, having cut my teeth on the Dungeons & Dragons Basic Set, and then eagerly purchasing all the AD&D books as soon as they come out, I think I’ll always be a bit D20 curious. And lately I’ve been thinking a lot about both D&D 5e and Pathfinder 2e.
The first problem is picking the “best” d20 flavor. Both have elements that I really love, and things that I find a bit off putting. For example, D&D’s Advantage/Disadvantage rules are brilliant. On the downside, it often feels like characters don’t really get any personality until they get their class specialty—which makes first-level characters feel really flat.
For Pathfinder, I love the elegance of their 3-action-per-turn rules. I also feel like the rules work like an intricate, well-crafted machine. Each individual rule makes sense, and everything works together very smoothly. The downside is, there are just so many damned rules! Maybe too many damned rules.
One of the things I love, regardless of the game system, is the ability to make interesting characters. Not necessary tactically optimal characters—but characters that have a unique flavor, and that would be fun to roleplay. For d20 games, this usually means I prefer systems that give me a lot of options. And while Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything added some very exciting bits to 5e—with the recent one-two punch of the Advanced Player’s Guide and the Lost Omen’s Ancestry Guide, I feel like Pathfinder has taken the lead. However, for some reason, Pathfinder has chosen to make most of these options generally unavailable in organized play. Which seems totally illogical? Is my orc witch, ratfolk swashbuckler, or sprite sorcerer really going to break the game?
And when it comes to organized play, both the Adventurer’s League and Pathfinder Society make it easy to find games. However, these games seem to be optimized towards serious players. I wish they had more options for people who just want to casually dip in now and then.
I don’t have time to run through a full zero-to-hero arc. Even if I did, I’d prefer to do that within the context of a campaign, where the same set of characters work through a set of related story arcs. Also, while I generally prefer to run games than to play games, I have no interest in running premade scenarios. So that’s right out.
Also, I absolutely hate all the bookkeeping rules. I wish they also provided simpler, character generation rules for people who just want to pop into a game. Want to make a 6th level halfling barbarian. Cool. Jus make sure it follows a relatively simple set of guidelines, and you’re good to go.
So, maybe organized play just isn’t for me. That means I keep toying with the idea of starting up my own d20 game. Of course, it would be set in my own world. And it would be very narrative and roleplaying heavy. Preferably we’d do away with the 5-foot squares, and just handle all the combat as theater of the mind. Or possibly steal the zone-based combat from 13th age. Ironically, when I mention the idea to my regular players, I seem to get very little interest. While most of them are fans of both 5e and Pathfinder, it seems that they’d rather I just stay in my narrative-game lane, rather than try to cross these streams.
