Working on a new setting for d&d

>working on a new setting for d&d
>hexcrawl west marches type setting but without enough conflicting factions to have story material
>excited to world build for the first time in years
>realize that by making npcs specific to a certain setting and making random encounter tables I will have to choose a system to commit to.
>like 3.5 but it's kind of dying and is full of powergamers
>like 5e but it doesnt doesn't have the cool fluff and character options I want to include
>don't like pathfinder but my group never wants to play anything else because it's "better" than 3.5 and they won't even touch 5e
>wouldn't mind OSR games but when we played ad&d they got pissy for not being able to do "builds"
What do?
Leaving the group is not an option.

Play something fiddly and crunch heavy like GURPS or BRP

Play 5e. It works better than Pathfinder, and most of Pathfinder's character options are traps anyway, meaning 5e has more MEANINGFUL character options.

>GURPS
>Cruncheavy
Jej
Crunchy is like Basic Roleplaying System, RuneQuest/Cthulhu style.

I second this. PF is better than 3.5 but traps are still gay and 5e also streamlines the gameplay and is WAY more balanced. Bards and Paladins OP though. Not exactly something that originated from this version of the game but you know. But mostly balanced.

GURPS is the answer.

>hexcrawl west marches type setting but without enough conflicting factions to have story material
Why the fuck would you do this?

Brcause it's better than the standard "beat the bbeg" plot that 90% of campaigns boil down to, and I have enough GM experience under my belt to avoid the normal pitfalls of a sandbox.

Mini Six

Well OP, here's the issue. I understand your need to express your setting idea (it's actually pretty neat in my opinion), but it's mostly irrelevant to your dilemma. This is what's relevant:
>don't like pathfinder but my group never wants to play anything else
>Leaving the group is not an option.

Simply put, you seem like you won't be able to convince them to play anything but Pathfinder, simply because they aren't willing to. But you can't abandon this group for whatever reason. The only real option then is to play it in Pathfinder, even if you don't like it.
That said, i'd encourage talking to them first to see if you can convince them to try another system. If they really won't budge, they probably aren't worth your time anyway, since the players should came about the GM's enjoyment of the game too.

>>hexcrawl west marches
>>like 3.5
>>my group never wants to play anything (but pathfinder)
>What do?
Kill yourself, obviously

> meaning 5e has more MEANINGFUL character options.
It honestly doesn't though. Epsecially when compared to 3.5, much less Pathfinder. Even when you ignore the trap options in most games you still have more variety and unique character options than 5e provides you, and that's not taking into account 3rd party Pathfinder stuff which you should be using.

Between the PHB, DMG, SCAG, V's, X's I & II, UA, and even the MM with an generous DM, you have at least as many MEANINGFUL options as PF. PF has tons of meaningless/duplicate options. Though in fairness I think 5e is on like it's fourth try for Cavalier so...

>PF has tons of meaningless/duplicate options
You mean 5e right. 5e's options all just slight mutations of the same hyper generic fantasy bullshit, unlike PF.
>the PHB, DMG, SCAG, V's, X's I & II, UA, and even the MM with an generous DM, you have at least as many MEANINGFUL options as PF
You really, really don't. It's fine to like 5e over PF, but 5e still has serious content issues compared to PF even when ignoring trap options.

Shadow of the Demon Lord. It was made by someone who worked on 3e, 4e and 5e and actually learned from those editions' mistakes. The character system gives you lots of options for customization without having hundreds of useless feats and shit, and it's not married to sacred cows of bad design the way D&D is.

this guy has the right idea, OP.

Isn't it worthless for anything other than super duper "looked at a monster, shit yourself and go crazy" Darkest Dungeon bullshit though?

5E makes it hard to come up with stuff on the fly. You can't just create a 5 HD monster, you have to go through tables and work out the CR to work out the XP to work out whether it's a reasonable encounter...it's all built around planning what monsters the PCs can fight, with no rules for monster reactions or fleeing. It's antithetical to a sandbox type campaign.

Best case scenario would be 5E character options and combat with OSR monsters and treasure (including gp = XP). Sadly nobody has come up with a working system yet.

I legit don't see how someone could like Pathfinder but not like 3.5, when it more or less is the same goddamn shit?

Fuck man, you could probably play a Pathfinder character in 3.5 and not even tell.

>wouldn't mind OSR games but when we played ad&d they got pissy for not being able to do "builds"
What about Godbound? It uses an OSR basis but characters have divine powers due to being actual demigods.

Most of OSR uses interchangable mechanics, and 90% percent of OST games use houserules once the perferred entry game rulesets are learned.
If you are really worried about sticking to a system, use OSR.

I think that's because a lot of 5e character options are fundamentally incompatible with osr sensibilities. That said, adopting the old variable xp requirements, screwing around with resting mechanics, and giving shit all attention to balance, can do pretty well.
For monsters, literally just refluff bears, it's saved my ass many a time. I have the bear stats on a sticky on my DM screen for a reason

I haven't actually played it but it seems like an elegant system. The fluff is trying to hard to be grimdark but there's no reason you can't throw it out and use your own.

How about not being, absolute retards, preparing the slightest bit, and maybe actually reading the DMG and MM? That cross your minds?

OSR monsters have fewer rules, usually just some special gimmick. Once you've converted the hit dice to 5E hit points, most of it still holds water (like "immune to fire" or "gets +2 to hit if it's flying").

Outside of power gamers who memorize the Monster Manual, most players probably don't give a damn about what arbitrary number of hit points some monster has, or whether its special feature is a bonus action or a reaction.

The major problem is XP. There's a complicated four-step process that could be one very simple table (hit dice + special abilities). I can understand why a lot of 5E DMs forego monster XP entirely, and it's a shame.

Give me a reasonably simple concept for a monster (e.g. a humanoid-animal or animal-animal hybrid) and I'll try to give you its OSR stats within five minutes of your post. I invite you to attempt the same with its 5E stats.

If I literally just switched the xp system (class based xp and monster xp) to AD&D's, would that screw 5e over?

Make your own game.

>"I'm running a 5E game. If you don't want to play, that's up to you, but I'll run it for whoever shows up."
Then if they don't show up, you find yourself a new group. Maybe even an online group if you have to.

Talk to your players like you're discussing a movie. Go in depth. Themes. Tone. Mechanics. All that. Break it down for them.

For a west marches style hexcrawl, OSR is probably your best best. You'll need to get them out of the build mindset. You don't build a character - you roll one. Your character doesn't start as a cool guy - they become cool during play.

Or dead. Sometimes takes a few tries to get there.

People tend to be more invested in games if they know what's going on behind the screen before the game starts. Talk to them. Tell them how their previous choices in AD&D made you feel. Get them invested.

>you have at least as many MEANINGFUL options as PF. PF has tons of meaningless/duplicate options.
No it doesn't. Stop pretending that everything that isn't a caster build or charging build is "unplayable." 3.5 has dozens of base classes and three of them at most could be considered bad enough to be "unplayable."

True, I kinda put it in for added context. I should elaborate: (1) they aren't the only group I DM for (yes I am masochist enough to DM for 2, sometimes 3 groups in a week) and (2) when I met them they were playing 4e, I made the mistake of introducing them to 3.5 and they liked it, they fell for the "Pathfinder is better" meme and.... yeah.
I'm the DM so we run whatever I want but to get them to play 3.5 I'd have to have that whole argument about why Pathfinder sucks ass and it's honestly rather tiring. Even more so for 5e. Especially because they'll say "I don't want to learn ANOTHER system (after learning 3.5 and 4e and PF).

There is nothing wrong with West Marches.
There is nothing wrong with Hexcrawl.
I like 3.5 despite a lot of its rules sucking massively.
So, you want me to kill myself for having sentimental attachment to the first system I ever played, despite having played better ones since. Gotcha.

I disagree with you on the 5e being hard to homebrew for, the monsters might be the only time that is true, given how empty of content the rules are I can make up and item or something and there is no one to go "AXSHUALLY that already exists" before bringing up the pfsrd link on their phone.

But I agree, and I am actually working on an OSR game that has some minimalist character options rules. I doubt it will be playable though.

This is good advice, thank you. Also cool picture.
I'm working on a barebones watered-down OSR homebrew without any snowflakey rules or weird snippets of other systems that I find in some games. I don't know if they'll go for it though. I'm including feats and a few combat maneuvers to sate them but my rule is that combat rules cannot take up more than one page and no shrinking the font.

>online group
I've done it. Never again will I sit in front of a computer for 5 hours and talk to some autistics over discord while moving tokens around in roll20. Had a headache by the time it was over.

>Never again will I sit in front of a computer for 5 hours and talk to some autistics over discord while moving tokens around in roll20.
Just gotta find the right group... but I won't say it's easy.

>cool guy - they become cool during play.
Nah, they just die over and over again because they're disposable morons with nothing setting them apart.

>I've done it. Never again will I sit in front of a computer for 5 hours and talk to some autistics over discord while moving tokens around in roll20. Had a headache by the time it was over.

What was so bad about it?

>So, you want me to kill myself for having sentimental attachment to the first system I ever played
Yes. Absofuckinglutely.

It's more the medium than the players.

>There is nothing wrong with West Marches.
>There is nothing wrong with Hexcrawl.
>I like 3.5 despite a lot of its rules sucking massively.
>So, you want me to kill myself for having sentimental attachment to the first system I ever played, despite having played better ones since. Gotcha.

More people should be like you. It's completely fucking unnecessary to rationalize your preferences and it's ok to like things.

>There is nothing wrong with West Marches.
Not inherently, but it is really goddamn easy to turn WM style games into an organizational nightmare

So, you can play a modern system that challenges players’ skill in character optimization, and never depletes their resources enough to make the episodic hexcrawl format work. Or you can play a retro system that challenges their skill in exploration. One is usually used for plot-based games, and the other for location-based. Which do you think will work better for the game you’re trying to do?

Kid.

Don't fret over the game you don't want to run. Run the game, in the system that you want to run. If the Players don't like it, so fucking what?

>If the Players don't like it, so fucking what?
They lose interest, at best they tell you that they don't enjoy your campaign and give you a chance to correct it, at worst they simply stop showing up while being passive aggressive dicks about it.

Same thing for the DM though. If things don't work out between OP and his group and they both settle for a system that suits everyone, chances are the campaign will stop midway through.