What D&Disms have you never liked?

[Sadrik]

Paladins (are the warrior priests or priest's warrior, I don't know, I'd rather the cleric encompass this niche anyway)
Barbarians and Monks (cultural niches classes that cannot exist without their culture getting in the way of their abilities)
Bards (lame, even in 1e where they were super powerful, strumming instrament playing spell casters are lame)

 

[JRRNeiklot]

I remembered another one. Funny that I forgot it, since it's my biggest peeve. I guess I just mentally won't let it be a D&Dism.

Two-weapon fighting rangers.

This.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

I like most of the things listed in this thread. I don't mind games without them, they just shouldn't have "D&D" on the cover.

 

[DrunkDutch]

Combat-centric mechanics.

Vancian magic.

Black-and-white alignment.

Rampant magic items.

Abstract hit points.

Nonsensical economics.

Fantasy gun control.

Lack of useful, sensible crafting rules.

Character progression in neat little chunks.

The d20.

If you dont like any of those things then why do you play the games?

 

[Masquerade]

While I enjoy D&D very much as a game (4e and Pathfinder are both among my favorite rpgs), I've never cared much for its style of fantasy. While I was into greek myths and Tolkien as a kid, I enjoyed playing Final Fantasy and Magic: the Gathering more than I enjoyed reading, so those things had a greater impact on my tastes. I've never run a game that was anywhere near as medieval or as Eurocentric as D&D's implied setting. I like Eberron and Spelljammer, but Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, and Dragonlance all look more or less the same from my point of view, and I'm not really interested in any of them.

Some specific D&Disms I dislike:

• Magic items. I usually excise this system entirely from the games I run, especially in 4e. I also dislike tracking gear in general; it's one of the things that turned me off of Shadowrun.
• Pre-4e planes. There were simply too many of them. The really evocative ones like Mechanus and the elemental planes felt like they served a purpose, but I never saw the need for Bytopia and the like. Come to think of it, I don't think I ever had PCs leave the material world as a DM prior to 4e. Oddly, though, I like some of the ideas behind the Planescape setting.
• Alignment. As an abstraction of a character's beliefs and personality, it's a handy system, but I don't like the idea that alignment is some hardcoded cosmic identifier that can be detected and interacted with by magic. I'd rather it be something that's written on the character sheet rather than something that actually exists in the world.
• Dragons. Yes, I'm aware that the game is called Dungeons & Dragons.
• Races that are human+X or human+X after several generations. Tieflings, half-elves, half-orcs, half-giants, muls, etc.
• The assumption that the PCs' enemies will primarily be monsters.

 

[Wormwood]

Alignment. Especially alignment codified into the rules system.

Heroes expected to despoil the bodies of everything they kill (interestingly, 4e's treasure system has effectively ended this practice in my group)

Experience Points. I'd rather just grant a level after each story.

Traps. Luke and Leia in the trash compactor is fun and engaging. A 1e thief pricking his finger on a poison needle and dying? Not so much.

Everyone's favorite: Vancian Magic. Hates it in 1978, and I hate the remaining vestiges in 4e.

 

[Ariosto]

I've never understood the hate clerics get. In AD&D, the cleric was one of the most powerful characters available.

It's not too shabby in the original game (especially vs. a fighter), either, or in the "Basic/Expert" sets. But I definitely favor clerics in 1st ed. AD&D!

I actually think 3es method of swapping out spells for cures forced the cleric even further into the med-kit role.

I concur.

 

[Antithetist]

Two-weapon fighting rangers.

This is pretty much the only one I whole-heartedly agree with. The assumption that melee ranger = two weapon fighting style is assinine. Where does that crap even come from? R.A. Salvatore's stunted imagination gave us one iconic double-scimitar-wielding ranger, and I guess there was no way to stop a legion of wannabes springing up in his wake - but did it really have to be actively encouraged by game mechanics?

Otherwise, I've enjoyed this thread mostly as a list of all the game's most loveable quirks.

 

[Wormwood]

Where does that crap even come from?

AD&D Unearthed Arcana:

Dark elves do not gain the combat bonuses of the surface elves with regard to sword and bow, but may fight with two weapons without penalty, provided each weapon may be easily wielded in one hand.
​

R.A. Salvatore's stunted imagination gave us one iconic double-scimitar-wielding ranger, and I guess there was no way to stop a legion of wannabes springing up in his wake - but did it really have to be actively encouraged by game mechanics?

Salvatore used existing D&D rules to make the single most famous character in D&D fiction history. The players he inspired did the rest---and since the 2e developers did not enable Drow as a playable race at launch, they shifted 2WF to Rangers instead.

 

[jaerdaph]

I like most of the things listed in this thread. I don't mind games without them, they just shouldn't have "D&D" on the cover.

I wouldn't go that far, but I will say that a lot of things I've thought of as D&D for over 30+ years (especially Vancian magic) disappearing from the current version of D&D is why I personally don't care for 4e.

Note that I'm not saying it was wrong or right to remove those things, or that my own personal preferences or definitions of "what D&D is and isn't" should be everyone else's as well.

It's your game. Enjoy it in your own way.