What D&Disms have you never liked?

[Aus_Snow]

Anything that's 'just because' or, worse, exactly that but with claims that the naffness is actually for a *different*, *better* reason. The stuff that makes you go 'oh please' when you read it, and possibly cringe or wince when it comes up in play.

Other than that, it's all good. I love the weirdness and wackiness. The next D&D movie should totally be based on something like OD&D meets Fiend Folio on steroids. Hallucinogenic, idiosyncratic, balls to the wall D&Dness every which way. I know, I know. . . but you can dream, right.

 

[jdrakeh]

Primarily the cleric class for the same reasons that you mention. In fact, the cleric class was pretty much solely responsible for encouraging me to check out fantasy RPGs other than D&D back in the day. I can live with it today, but it did succeed in convincing me that D&D is good only for running games uniquely D&D (not a bad thing, mind you).

 

[Woas]

What are D&Disms? Can you list them for me?

 

[Rechan]

I'll echo the Alignment, Western Fantasy, Vancian magic, and Fantasy Gun Control of teh above.

For me:

Zero-to-Hero and "Old School" 1st-level-is-lethal: Farm boys picking up swords, I find tedious. I don't like weak tiny low level characters who die with a breath.

"Random tables" for x y and z. "Random" encounters is just "filler", I want the Dm to plan things. Flesh out his NPCs, not just roll their personality randomly. I get we use "dice", but we needn't be slaves to them. Now, random tables does provide ideas/options, but I pick off of those and flesh 'em out.

Selling/buying magical items, the importance of those magical items, and the number of magical items you'd need. I personally think that you should only get two magical items that do multiple things.

 

[Dykstrav]

Every version of D&D has its own quirks, design features, and shortcomings. Rules bits don't tend to bother me as much because you can use house rules to play the game how you'd like.

What tends to bother me are the assumptions about play style that are commonly held, but make no sense when you try to justify it within the narrative.

The prime example of this sort of thing is the assumption that the player characters don't know each other at the beginning of the campaign, or when a new character joins the group. This has never made sense to me. "Howdy stranger! We noticed that you're a wizard, and our wizard just died about ten hours ago. You wanna join us on our adventures?" Even on the very first session, any method of getting the party together seems forced and contrived.

I also dislike the assumption that every single party member must have the exact same experience point total as every other party member, even when some players obviously put forth more effort and participation into the game. In my opinion, if one player sits back and plays on his Nintendo DS or doodles on his character sheet during a skill challenge or exploration encounter/situation, they don't deserve a cut of the XP.

 

[Votan]

Selling/buying magical items, the importance of those magical items, and the number of magical items you'd need. I personally think that you should only get two magical items that do multiple things.

I actually see Vancian magic as an essential part of the system because it makes powerful spells possible. But I agree 110% with the magic item market -- magic items should be rare and not a long list on the player's sheet.

 

[Chris Knapp]

First off, I love D&D. I enjoy it because I recognize its a game and its so much fun to play, not because it represents my ideal pseudo-simulation of how fantasy adventures play out in my mind.

That said, I dislike many of the core aspects of D&D:

*Character levels: I don't like the way character growth is measured in strict levels that are then used to measure every other aspect of the characters capabilities. By extension, experience points are also lumped into this. I've never been a fan of the idea that after a few adventures, killing creature X becomes a cakewalk compared to how it was say 10 levels earlier. The whole escalation of challenges collides with my suspension of disbelief when low level orcs are suddenly now 10th level monsters simply because the plot calls for orcs here and they can only now be a challenge if they are 10 times as powerful as they were previously. A gator wrangler is still as challenged by a big gator during his 10th year of doing it as he is after his 3rd. I guess the whole idea of heroic fantasy with epically powered characters doesn't really appeal to me.

*Hit points: I find that the random aspects of hit points (luck, skill, etc) can be separated from the physical damage pretty easily while retaining mechanical ease-of-use.

*Character classes: fantasy archetypes, while easy for players new to a system to understand, tend to actually limit character options as player system mastery increases. I dislike having to take my favorite character from a novel or my imagination and make what I feel are compromises when selecting a hard coded class (or classes) that determines almost all other aspects of the characters abilities and future advancement.

 

[S'mon]

I'm not a fan of the Cleric class, yup.

I don't like the pre-4e assumption that all powerful priests and wizards are engines of destruction who can annihilate armies. This is a result of using PC-Class rules for NPCs. I love that in 4e I can have NPCs who are powerful ritual casters but with zero combat ability.

Vancian magic doesn't hugely bug me but I find a spell-point system or the 4e system work better for my main campaign world.

Scry-buff-teleport, and 7th-9th level spells generally, pre-4e. This only became a huge problem with 3e because pre-3e hardly anyone could cast that stuff.

3e CoDzilla.

4e monster pinatas who Just Won't Die. OK for the very occasional critter who has been suitably foreshadowed - eg I knew going in to Dungeon Delve #2 it featured a Goblin Underboss Elite, and I'd read criticism that this was a poorly designed monster, way too many hp. I could have revised the stats, but this time I kept the stats, called him Buggett the Indestructible, made sure the PCs knew about his moniker, and played up his won't-die character, sloughing off scads of hp as he provoked opportunity attacks, shrugged off blasts, and took a dive off the 40' tower, pursued by a vengeful halfling PC who finally managed to nail him.

 

[Stormonu]

I'll love D&D to the day I die, but there are things in the game that have begun to bother me.

+1 to +5 weapons and armor. You never see fighters and such who carry weapons (or armor) through their whole career. Instead they dump their weapon (or armor) at the first hint of a new shiny.

Vancian magic I have never really liked but always put up with. 4E's system kinda works as a replacement, but I think I'd probably prefer a hybrid spell point encounter/daily system.

The lack of some sort of condition track for D&D. "Bloodied" is a good start, but monsters & characters who fight and adventure at full strength until they suddenly keel over at 0 HP really, really bother me. Of course, the problem is designing a system that doesn't make it even easier to beat your opponent than it is now - in the sense that with the new system characters and monsters would have to be able to last for about the same length of time they do now even as they are whittled down.

Gold for magic items. It just throws any semblance of a workable economy right out the window, and punishes creative use of money - and mundane equipment.

 

[Rechan]

Um, those aren't D&Disms, S'mon. "Scry-Buff-Teleport" isn't a common assumption, nor is CoDzilla. It's a rules abuse/CharOps problem, a balance issue, not something related to the Game itself.

A D&Dism is something that's Unique to D&D, something that you would call a "Sacred Cow". If you said the word to a gamer, he'd know you're talking about D&D as opposed to any other system. Like +1 Swords, Alignment, Levels, etc. A D&Dism is something that, if you removed it, a grognard would say "That's not D&D anymore!"

Granted, these have gotten "watered down" with all the RetroClones, but they're just D&D-clones, so you have to set those aside.