Is D&D Only Good for D&D Stories?

When the first version of AD&D 2nd Edition came out, it looked more like a generic game than D&D. The art was all over the place, but it included historical imagery that felt more like a simulation of Greek myths and stories. It still had plenty of generic fantasy art and pieces from noted TSR artists, but the entire game felt more setting-neutral than many editions. The revised edition shifted back into the D&D norms, but it still had that generic feeling, and that game could be used as a generic fantasy game.

TSR felt pressure from GURPS in the late 1980s and early 1990s, so it is understandable they shifted away from the "D&D lore" and more into generic fantasy tropes and imagery. AD&D 2E is peak D&D for the kind of flexible fantasy play I’m talking about; it does not have the Gygaxian prose, but it does have the modern tropes, including the bard. The best Open 2E version is For Gold & Glory, and one of the best alternatives to Wizards' D&D out there; it is a better game for generic fantasy than AD&D 2E since it removes the D&D tropes, and the art is fantastic and deeply thematic. If you go in expecting D&D tropes or demons and devils, note those have been removed, but the game itself is very strong.

When D&D 4E came around, Wizards went full "World of Warcraft," and we now had the official D&D setting, planes, and worlds firmly set in stone as the default setting. We never left this model of world delivery, and D&D 5E still feels like it is set in the "official" D&D universe.

The subclass design does not help things; they are designed for a specific world model and idea. These drag in a lot of D&D-isms, mixed with the high-and-flashy magic spells, and you are doing more work to remove things than enjoy a game with a neutral base. The cosmology, planar travel, and monsters all feel like a "World of Warcraft world, but D&D" and far out of the realm of generic fantasy. They drag their assumptions with them. Even the “simple” Fighter and Rogue have gotten more layered with subclass features that often feel anachronistic or tonally off for a grounded historical-fantasy game.

The Open 5E clones still feel like "different flavor D&D worlds" rather than generic fantasy, with Level Up A5E feeling the most generic of the three, compared to the heavily Midgard-ized Tales of the Valiant. Even then, Level Up A5E makes specific assumptions about races like Orcs, and still crafts its own setting in the rules.

Treasure, magic items, and gear round out the assumed pseudo-Victorian post-Renaissance setting, and once you introduce guns, all bets are off. Modern D&D is all over the place in terms of technology levels. Even the manner of dress has morphed into "trenchcoats and pauldrons" steampunk fantasy. In many modern games, the equipment lists help define the world.

Granted, with enough work, D&D can be used for historical fantasy, but I get the feeling it is a lot more work to do it, or you need a "5E compatible" game specifically designed for that setting and time period, usually a crowdfunding buy-in whenever it rolls around. The costs for supporting 5E are typically higher than other games.

The game has spent the last decade doubling down on its own identity rather than staying a neutral chassis. The D&D identity is popular and commercially successful, but it does make the system less transparent when you try to use it for something outside its preferred aesthetic.

While I play GURPS for these types of games, there are drawbacks. The rules weight and character creation times of GURPS prevent quick adoption, and many groups bounce off the system in the first 20 minutes, never to return. There is also a lot more referee work up front.

GURPS is better at supporting any setting without fighting you. Whether it is the better game for a given group depends on how much they value setting fidelity versus ease of play, speed of character creation, and built-in high-fantasy energy. GURPS is not low-prep or fast-starting; I would play Shadowdark for that type of "pick up fantasy game."

Shadowdark is a legitimate middle option, and it sits in an interesting spot between modern 5E and something like GURPS. It is deliberately lighter on baked-in setting and cosmology than current D&D. The core game gives you four classes (Fighter, Priest, Thief, Wizard), a short spell list, a focus on torch-and-resource pressure, and a tone that leans classic pulp fantasy rather than the high-magic, multiplanar, subclass-heavy world of 5E. Because so much of the “D&D-ness” has been stripped out or made optional, it is easier to tilt toward other flavors without constant subtraction.

I can do a classic Greek or Roman game in Shadowdark easily. But Shadowdark is not a blank slate. It is still a class-and-level, hit-point, armor-class, dungeon-crawling fantasy game at its core. Shadowdark wants to be dangerous, resource-aware, and slightly pulp. That is a feature if you like that feel. It is a mild constraint if you want something closer to pure historical drama or very low-fantasy mythic storytelling.

Shadowdark will not hand you a perfect classical or Norse game out of the box, but the amount of material you have to remove or rewrite is noticeably smaller than in current D&D. You are also not having to create everything yourself or leverage sourcebooks like you are in GURPS, though the GURPS sourcebooks are excellent. On the plus side, Shadowdark is far easier for new players to get used to, and the "flavor" of the campaign is "classic Greek" or "classic Roman," and the existing classes work as-is.

How much setting and tone does the system assume?

With 5E, you have a strictly defined world.

With GURPS, you have everything and nothing, and it is all DIY.

Shadowdark sits in the perfect center of this discussion: light, fast, and familiar - it hits the D&D notes. It is also far easier to mod and flavor than full D&D. It is far easier to start new players with than GURPS. Magic is already constrained and dangerous. The system can be modded into any setting with minimal effort.