Would you play D&D if the sacred cows were sacrificed?

[airwalkrr]

D&D is a game of class levels, ability scores, and hit points. If they get rid of that stuff, I would not longer think of it as D&D, but that does not mean it would not be a good system. It might be a bad system, but that could equally be from its own faults and have nothing to do with sacrificing sacred cows. I voted neutral because I will evaluate 4e based on its own merits and flaws.

I will probably run my 1e/3e hybrid for most of the foreseeable future however because the system does exactly what I want it to do. I cannot foresee converting to 4e unless it looks a lot more like 1e than 3e and gets rid of some of the biggest flaws I see with 3e. Since that is unlikely, as the things that probably sell 3e are what I consider to be flaws, I will probably stick with my 1e/3e hybrid.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

I'd love it, although I don't think it would be a good idea. There are plenty of games that already do this, including Mutants & Masterminds which, if it but had HP, would play basically like D&D with all the sacred cows slaughtered on the altar of better gameplay. Why not leave D&D to people who like D&D and play another game?

Anyway, I'd prefer 4e if it did this. The only sacred cows I'd like to keep are:

The d20 system itself.

Levels - but with the current levels 1-30 stretched out to 1-100 to allow for more incremental advancement.

Classes - in the PHB, as packages built using an underlying point buy system found in the DMG.

Hit points - which I prefer to damage saves, VP/WP, etc.

 

[Melan]

The sacred cows are why D&D (various editions) is my game of choice. Hit points, Vancian magic, classes, levels, funky monsters, dungeons. If they are slaughtered, there is no longer a point in continuing. Aside from the player network, I don't even understand why others would like to get rid of them. After all, if you don't like the rules, why not play something else?

 

[billd91]

There are plenty of good games out there that don't use D&D's sacred cows. They develop divine bovines of their own. But in any event, one of the reasons I play D&D is because I like it and the way it works. Mess with that too much and I'll stick with out of print editions.
Maybe not as out of print as diaglo...

 

[Xyanthon]

I voted for mostly hate it. Even if it was a great game, it just wouldn't be D&D. But then again, I'm not sure I'd really care all that much because I'd have all of the earlier editions that I already like to play (like 1e).

 

[MerricB]

Classes, Levels, AC, and Hit Points are four of the reasons I prefer D&D over other games. I really wouldn't want to get rid of them.

(I play in a M&M campaign, and I'm becoming less and less enthralled of the system. It works, but I find it a bit too bland. I'm not fond of any system that has the possibility of death from a single blow when you're otherwise unhurt).

Cheers!

 

[Fat Daddy]

I voted neutral. I wouldn't immediately hate it out-of-hand. But I'd have to see it to know if I'd like it.

Yeah, what he said.

 

[tonse]

I voted "hate it" simply because if this was what I really wanted, I would be playing something else right now anyway.

 

[Graf]

I don’t think I’d switch to 4.0 at this point.

With the new splats and rules the 3.5 system basically seems to just work.
My regular DnD game (where I’m a player, not a DM) is basically house-rule free.

Which is good enough.

 

[Gold Roger]

I might play it, if it's a good game. I wouldn't call it D&D though.

D&D carries a certain legacy that should always be there for the game to be what it is. Some of it is flavor/world elements (known demonprinces, the great weel, mindflayers, beholder etc.) and some of it is ingrained in the very core mechanics (HP, AC, Classes, Levels, some degree of vancian spellcasting, the races and their definitions, abilities).