D&D needs improvement

[EricNoah]

Maybe one way to get at this is to ask, "What is good about D&D as it is?" My guess is that in the original poster's opinion, only one thing: that it is the most popular, and thus easier to find players. What he probably wants is for D&D to be like "Game X" (where Game X fixes everything D&D does wrong), but also be the most popular. I guess that's why they call it "fantasy" gaming.

Another question would be: if D&D really is so flawed, how does it survive? Or why do people keep playing it? My personal answer is that I don't really want an RPG that is "realistic" -- I want one that is playable as a game.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

Sorry, but I find this to be a lame response. Why not simply try to fix the problems you see to make your game the game you want?

Because the OP had a problem with essentially every single aspect of the game, with the possible exceptions of the spellcasting system, races and alignment.

If you retrofit D&D to be exceedingly lethal, with damage-reducing armor, extremely powerful shields, always Dex to hit, on the fly XP, no classes, lightly or unarmored Romans ( ), herds of 200 bears ( ), no penalty plate mail, no attacks of opportunity, simplified rules (though how, I'm not sure), and a heavily pared-down skill system...

You end up with a system that will probably look a lot like one of the many professionally designed systems on the market designed to handle all of those things. Harn, or, heck GURPS would seem to answer most of the OP's issues. SilCore could handle the game he wants better, likewise True20.

Why waste time retrofitting D&D when the entire RPG industry outside TSR began with other companies saying, wait, that's a stupid way they do it in D&D, we could do it better... and when several of them, IMO, have done it better, or at least more to taste.

 

[Psion]

I know I didn't address everything, but it really seems like you'd be better served by the True20 rules set.

Well, the OP might still regard it as a "class system emulating a skill system", but overall, I think you make a solid case. Add to that that True20 seems to be growing a sizeable following and it's tolerably similar to D&D/d20 such that existing players could pick it up, it sounds like a good call.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Because some games fundamentaly do a better job at matching the rules in your head. And in my experience, it's often substantially more difficult to find players for heavily house-ruled games.

I had a potential player decide not to play once because she didn't want to play in a heavily house-ruled game, so I can see what you mean. I think, though, that most people avoid heavy house rules only when the rules are not available in a tangible format. Or when those rules create a lot of WTF moments.

We don't know if the OP looked at Unearthed Arcana, but it is to my mind somewhat telling that several of his complaints are addressed in that book.

On another note, someone might attempt to claim that the OP's comparison of Roman armour to that of the Greek Hopelites is "silly" but the reality is that the OP never made such a comparison. Clearly, Roman armour was relatively light compared to some examples of later armour, and they made good use of shields.

The rules are full of inconsistencies. For some, they are of no consequence. For others, they are part of the charm of D&D. For still others, they grate. (Shrug) 3.X has a lot of neat innovations that were (at best) in the larval stage in earlier editions. 4.X or 5.X might be the perfect game for the OP. The OP has a perfect right to try to convince the gaming public, and WotC, that some things should be changed.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I'd rather spend my time gaming than tinkering with rules.

But some people enjoy tinkering with rules. Is this badfun?

 

[ForceUser]

But some people enjoy tinkering with rules. Is this badfun?

No. But again, the OP did not offer a constructive discussion about tinkering (which, incidentally, would belong in a different forum anyway). He just complained.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

The OP has a perfect right to try to convince the gaming public, and WotC, that some things should be changed.

Yup, and the rest of us have the perfect right to call baloney (with Eric's Grandma within earshot).

 

[Raven Crowking]

No. But again, the OP did not offer a constructive discussion about tinkering (which, incidentally, would belong in a different forum anyway). He just complained.

I disagree. I think several specific suggestions were given.

 

[ForceUser]

I disagree. I think several specific suggestions were given.

Sorry, I'm with the Colonel on the whole calling baloney thing.

 

[Huw]

AC - I'm wearing a ton of armor, therefore you can't hit me. Rediculous notion.

More like "I'm wearing a tonne of armour, therefore you can't HURT me". Trust me, the more you think about this one (and the fact that strength, not dexterity, gives you a hit bonus), the more it makes sense. Took me about ten years to fully appreciate it.

Initiative - I'm more flexible / faster than you, therefore I'm always the first one to react in situations. (It would make more sense if initiative was based on wisdom -- skills like listen and spot.)

They've never got initiative right. The present system is the least worst in the game's historyl IMHO.

The two game systems I'm aware of with decent initiative systems (Runequest and 1e Shadowrun) are also broken due to said systems.

I don't know the system, but apparently in Feng Shui initiative works in reverse. The lowest goes first, and the higher numbers decide how to react.

Platinum Pieces - Where in the heck did medevil soceities learn how to smelt platinum?!

I agree with you on this. "Platinum" in my game is near pure gold, and "gold pieces" are low quality gold, about 6 carat.