I have been running a 5e game but I have gotten to a point where I really hate running it.  It is a broken and bloated system and it basically feels like I am running a table top video game, not Dungeons and Dragons.

Two systems that I have been considering are Pathfinder 2nd edition and Castles and Crusades.

Both systems look really good and I am kind of leaning towards C&C so that I can run the Gary Gygax content but I am unsure which system to go with.  I want a system with ease and plenty of options for the players without the bloat of 5e.

Which system should I go with?

Quote from: GhostNinja on March 31, 2024, 01:57:22 PM
I have been running a 5e game but I have gotten to a point where I really hate running it.  It is a broken and bloated system and it basically feels like I am running a table top video game, not Dungeons and Dragons.

Two systems that I have been considering are Pathfinder 2nd edition and Castles and Crusades.

Both systems look really good and I am kind of leaning towards C&C so that I can run the Gary Gygax content but I am unsure which system to go with.  I want a system with ease and plenty of options for the players without the bloat of 5e.

Which system should I go with?

If you are running at the table: Castles and Crusades. With the optional rule that your prime is just a +6 to your roll.

Plus it is close enough to classic material that you can use older modules, etc..

I wouldn't do PF2 unless you are taking advantage of VTT automation.

Quote from: GhostNinja on March 31, 2024, 01:57:22 PM
I have been running a 5e game but I have gotten to a point where I really hate running it.  It is a broken and bloated system and it basically feels like I am running a table top video game, not Dungeons and Dragons.

Two systems that I have been considering are Pathfinder 2nd edition and Castles and Crusades.

Both systems look really good and I am kind of leaning towards C&C so that I can run the Gary Gygax content but I am unsure which system to go with.  I want a system with ease and plenty of options for the players without the bloat of 5e.

Which system should I go with?

PF2 is a strange system to me. C&C is pretty solid - I'd go with that between the choice of them.

That said - are you completely against just running 1e or 2e? Or something a little more well thought out? Specifically, if you're going to run C&C, to me you may as well go Fantasy Craft.

The only draw to C&C is the "2e" feel - which I totally get.

My go to for replacing 5E is Savage Worlds Pathfinder but I doubt that'd be what you're looking for. I actually think Basic Role Playing by Chaosium is a good alternative with the right amount of crunch vs roleplay. Very versatile  However Castles & Crusades IS very good too. That or BECMI if you want to get into running castles and other domains.

Try running a one shot of each game and see which one works best for you and your group.

If your time with the group is limited, then perhaps you could find an online game of each type and play in it so you can see firsthand what the games are like?

Pathfinder 2e is a good replacement for the modern ways of playing 5e.  If you are playing 5e in an old school way I don't know what to recommend because that's very roll-your-owny, and probably the best way to play 5e. 

But you discuss 5e being bloated.  Do you mean with options, or do you mean with rules?  Because Pathfinder 2e has more rules, and you MUST know them to run the game.  It's a high rules system.  Its advantage over 5e is that if you know all the rules (and hopefully the players do to), it's logical and smooth.  But that's still a big ask, and asking your team to switch to a high-rules system that they don't know may be annoying for them.

Anyway, if you want something that is a modern game like 3.X through 5e, Pathfinder 2e is a solid effort.  Be careful with the "remaster" though- the D&D OGL fiasco has caused Paizo to rename everything and do a bunch of changes.  You will have to learn the original Pathfinder 2e and the remaster (which is still ongoing) and then make your own calls on whether races should be losing racial penalties and such.  Basically, you have to crawl up the rulesystem's ass one large intestine more than the standard system.  It might still be worth it. 

I can't speak to Castles and Crusades, except that it is so different I'd want to know why you picked that one specifically out of the competition.  Your reason for that might yield a very definitive answer.  For instance, if you read it and felt that it is what you want to run, well, maybe you should.

I always consider the setting when selecting a rules system. Some combinations feel like a better fit than others. I think C&C is excellent for settings that lean toward the traditional medieval European trappings. Knights, clerics, and paladins are exactly the sort of classes you'd want and C&C does them well. C&C would be my pick for Greyhawk or Harnworld. If you are going for a more contemporary fantasy setting then maybe something else might feel like a better fit. I'm not familiar enough with PF to know if that would be better or not.

Quote from: Jaeger on March 31, 2024, 02:18:57 PM
If you are running at the table: Castles and Crusades. With the optional rule that your prime is just a +6 to your roll.

Plus it is close enough to classic material that you can use older modules, etc..

That's the way I am leaning.

Quote from: Jaeger on March 31, 2024, 02:18:57 PM
I wouldn't do PF2 unless you are taking advantage of VTT automation.

I'm not.  I am trying to get more in person games and less online games.  I don't mind playing by VTT but I prefer in person.

I'll second (or third?) the vote for Savage Pathfinder if you want to run D&D-like fantasy, but not use the D&D rules. It's my go-to for that purpose as well.

Does it have to be Pathfinder 2? Maybe it's because I grew up with 3.0 and 3.5, but I find Pathfinder 1 much more intuitive than Pathfinder 2. It can still be a chunky system, but for me at least there's an internal logic to it that makes it easier to understand than other equally complex games. Admittedly Pathfinder 2 is a game I have only cursory knowledge of, but 3.5/PF1 certainly feel more grounded to me than either 5e or Pathfinder 2.

EDIT: Are you planning to continue your campaign with a new system, or start fresh? Like Vidgrip mentioned, Castles & Crusades isn't really the same flavor-wise to 5e. PF2 is definitely closer, but then it's also going to replicate the things you probably don't like about running 5e

Quote from: tenbones on March 31, 2024, 02:43:44 PM
PF2 is a strange system to me. C&C is pretty solid - I'd go with that between the choice of them.

Kind of the way I am leaning.

Quote from: tenbones on March 31, 2024, 02:43:44 PM
That said - are you completely against just running 1e or 2e? Or something a little more well thought out?

I am not against it.  I would run AD&D 2e because I dislike how disorganized 1e is.  Played it and that drove me crazy.  Actually I am currently playing in a 2e game and having a lot of fun.

Quote from: tenbones on March 31, 2024, 02:43:44 PM
The only draw to C&C is the "2e" feel - which I totally get.

That's cool.  Diodn't know that.

Quote from: King Tyranno on March 31, 2024, 03:22:20 PM
My go to for replacing 5E is Savage Worlds Pathfinder but I doubt that'd be what you're looking for. I actually think Basic Role Playing by Chaosium is a good alternative with the right amount of crunch vs roleplay. Very versatile  However Castles & Crusades IS very good too. That or BECMI if you want to get into running castles and other domains.

I am a fan of Savage Worlds but just for everything but Fantasy.  Something about SW doesn't come across to me as fun running a fantasy setting.

Quote from: ForgottenF on March 31, 2024, 04:49:07 PM
I'll second (or third?) the vote for Savage Pathfinder if you want to run D&D-like fantasy, but not use the D&D rules. It's my go-to for that purpose as well.

As I said to someone else, I love Savage Worlds but I cannot see it as fun for fantasy.

Quote from: ForgottenF on March 31, 2024, 04:49:07 PMDoes it have to be Pathfinder 2? Maybe it's because I grew up with 3.0 and 3.5, but I find Pathfinder 1 much more intuitive than Pathfinder 2. It can still be a chunky system, but for me at least there's an internal logic to it that makes it easier to understand than other equally complex games. Admittedly Pathfinder 2 is a game I have only cursory knowledge of, but 3.5/PF1 certainly feel more grounded to me than either 5e or Pathfinder 2.

No, No 3.0 or 3.5.  I played 3.5 and I Literly quit playing D&D because I hated 3.5 and how over complicated it was.  3.0 and 3.5 were simply an attempt to make D&D a wargame again, not a rpg.

Quote from: ForgottenF on March 31, 2024, 04:49:07 PMEDIT: Are you planning to continue your campaign with a new system, or start fresh? Like Vidgrip mentioned, Castles & Crusades isn't really the same flavor-wise to 5e. PF2 is definitely closer, but then it's also going to replicate the things you probably don't like about running 5e

Then I would probably just start over.  Use my current world with the new characters.

Quote from: Svenhelgrim on March 31, 2024, 03:31:34 PM
Try running a one shot of each game and see which one works best for you and your group.

If your time with the group is limited, then perhaps you could find an online game of each type and play in it so you can see firsthand what the games are like?

That's not a bad idea.

Quote from: Vidgrip on March 31, 2024, 03:47:42 PM
I always consider the setting when selecting a rules system. Some combinations feel like a better fit than others. I think C&C is excellent for settings that lean toward the traditional medieval European trappings. Knights, clerics, and paladins are exactly the sort of classes you'd want and C&C does them well. C&C would be my pick for Greyhawk or Harnworld. If you are going for a more contemporary fantasy setting then maybe something else might feel like a better fit. I'm not familiar enough with PF to know if that would be better or not.

Ok.  Thanks for letting me know.

Quote from: GhostNinja on March 31, 2024, 05:35:21 PM

Quote from: ForgottenF on March 31, 2024, 04:49:07 PM
I'll second (or third?) the vote for Savage Pathfinder if you want to run D&D-like fantasy, but not use the D&D rules. It's my go-to for that purpose as well.

As I said to someone else, I love Savage Worlds but I cannot see it as fun for fantasy.

Quote from: ForgottenF on March 31, 2024, 04:49:07 PMDoes it have to be Pathfinder 2? Maybe it's because I grew up with 3.0 and 3.5, but I find Pathfinder 1 much more intuitive than Pathfinder 2. It can still be a chunky system, but for me at least there's an internal logic to it that makes it easier to understand than other equally complex games. Admittedly Pathfinder 2 is a game I have only cursory knowledge of, but 3.5/PF1 certainly feel more grounded to me than either 5e or Pathfinder 2.

No, No 3.0 or 3.5.  I played 3.5 and I Literly quit playing D&D because I hated 3.5 and how over complicated it was.  3.0 and 3.5 were simply an attempt to make D&D a wargame again, not a rpg.

I've never gotten that perspective on 3.x. To me, it reads as the most simulationist edition of D&D by far, but that's not the point.

If that's how you feel, I wouldn't recommend going within a mile of either edition of Pathfinder. That D20 system DNA is baked right into the crust. Ditto for FantasyCraft, which was mentioned upthread. Everything I've read or heard about Pathfinder 2 suggests it is much more gamey than anything from the 3rd edition era. 

If simplicity is the priority, then it's no contest. Any OSR game is going to be much simpler than Pathfinder. If you want something with more class options than C&C, I'd say Fantastic Heroes and Witchery. I think that has the most class options of the major OSR games. Either that or ACKS. If you want something with more progression options for a single character, you're probably looking for Shadow of the Demon Lord or maybe Fantasy Age.