A few years a go, well maybe more than that, but time does fly, WoTC (I think it was at the time) gave us the d20 D&D open licence. This allowed any game to be adapted to the basic parameters of ubiquitous D&D 3e rules.

It was a clever move, empowering smaller companies to release new systems (Pathfinder, Conan) or duplicate existing games (Traveller, Call of Cthulhu), or just pay into the bigger 3e monster with support materiel and help keep d20 as the dominant RPG form. Even some fully realised core game systems came out with a d20 version (GURPS), further empowering their own demise (GURPS).

Win-win?

I , like many at the time did pay into the insurmountable wave of content, heavily. My general dislike for the d20 game is well documented here, based on some valid issues dating back to the dawn of RPG’s as we know them, but sometimes the offering was just too tempting for a rampant collector with little control. Most of it is gone now (Iron Heroes a 3e murmur of the yet unreleased 13A style of “Epic” game is the exception, not sure why!?).

Many of the ones I wanted to like were the poorest iterations of the system, some fatally flawed (see Iron Heroes above), but the massive community presence acted as a buoy for any doubters. That is until D&D moved on, leaving most of us in a sort of developmental limbo, only exacerbated by the complete re-build each iteration of D&D seems to require (another reason I like d100 games-consistency of basic principals).

So, to the heading above.

We are seeing the dawn of a second wave of shared d20 mechanics, through multiple sources, but in a more controlled, mature and logical way.

5e, even from the perspective of a confirmed disliker (recently traded my core books for some X Wing ships), is far better than the versions that came before. The system is clean, well balanced (for D&D, in its own unique way) and closer to a realistic gaming experience than maybe any except 3e with the 6th level limit option (called E6, a genuine thing for a while).

I have a foot in here in the form of Adventures in Middle Earth, which marries the oldest RPG to one of the pillars of RPG inspiration and I like it. The original system (The One Ring) is elegant, innovative and very thematically pure, but it is a little “rail-roady” for my liking. It forces you to play the way the designers feel you should in this creative space, but leaves too little room for a more open play style.

AIME is, I feel, superior for two reasons.

Firstly it is more cohesive as a realised system. Coming out second, it did not suffer the continuity issues of two core sets and the need for a follow up “Players Companion” to complete the game.

Secondly, it avoids the railroading issues of the original by applying the principals of The One Ring to the more generic 5e system, meeting it basically half way and championing the best of both. 5e is better (for me) for the elements added and for those omitted. AIME is all the better for the versatility 5e adds. You should play as the feel of the game empowers you to, but within that, the systems and processes are less of an imperative, more of a solid, thematic frame work.

You actually cannot stray too far from the source materiel unless you deliberately introduce foreign elements, like D&D Magic users etc, which is of course, entirely your call, but one would have to ask why you bought AIME at all. Another cool element of this is all you need for AIME is the “How to play” chapter of the free 5e starter guide. Everything else is covered by the new system.

This brings us to the topic of the post…finally :).

Two of my favourite worlds are going to be “5e’d”.

Symbaroum, a world I find fascinating and compelling and The Iron Kingdoms (one of the ones that also got the earlier 3e treatment). The publishers of Symbaroum are also going to release TOR and AIME in second editions , further adding to my vexations.

This means I can re-delve into these worlds in a more mainstream way than their own systems offer and further empower a more palatable version of 5e (for me). Less system crunch, fewer hats to wear and some little issues like miniatures or clunky mechanics are avoided.

But………

I have some massive and quite new tomes for IK and they are compatible with the actual war game (2nd ed) which I also have, including far too many minis.

Symbaroum is tougher. The second ed rules are out, but I actually think I would rather take some inspiration from the Martin Grip art in particular and do a d100 Legend/Mythras version anyway. The magic systems from Mythras, Animism in particular seems ideal for an ancient Fey meets a hard, soulless civilisation style game.

So, what was the question again?

If I am reducing my RPG’s not adding to them, is there a valid argument to sell off sizeable, often reasonably new systems to replace them with the same-but-different 5e version? This is really just to rationalise my learning/teaching curve to only d20 and d100 systems. Further, is it a good thing to take away the available versatility of different systems, each with their own virtues? Iron Kingdoms in particular is directly tied/fully compatible with, second edition Warmachine and Hordes, a game that I also own in some quantity.

Following on from that thought, the original systems (TOR, IK etc) were the original brainchildren of the designers, the 5e clones are really just their “make more money and increases the company profile” alternate faces, no matter how good they are.

Boiling it down; Do I chase completion, simplicity and these new, pretty books or allow my own pre-stated desire to work within a more “home-spun” creative world of d100 games actually take hold? This is probably a test delivered at the right time. Making a compelling world is after all, the hobby behind the hobby for many role players. In reality, browsing some art on the net often gets the creative juices flowing more than reading an entire system front to back.