D&D needs improvement

[Psion]

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

What's fun to you is entirely your determination. But I'm guessing you are just being contrary now. I like tinkering, but to me, a top to bottom retooling like he is suggesting would be tedious to me.

 

[Raven Crowking]

What's fun to you is entirely your determination. But I'm guessing you are just being contrary now. I like tinkering, but to me, a top to bottom retooling like he is suggesting would be tedious to me.

A top-to-bottom retooling, to me, is what would create exactly the game I want to play.

But, you are right, the "badfun" comment was snarky. It seems that anytime anyone suggests changing the game (even their own campaign) to disallow anything, the Badfun Police show up to claim that the poster really just wants to criticize the way that they play the game.

 

[Storm Raven]

So, basically, if you use as a source of evidence the same thing that is in dispute as evidence, the Roman Legionnaire is well armoured? Or, again, if you are using a comparison not made by the OP to disprove the OP's point?

By any comparison you care to make, the Roman legionnaire was well armored. For any time period in which personal armor was used, the typical Roman soldier was well-armored. By the standards of his era he was well-armored. By the standards of soldiers in later eras, he was well-armored. Compared to a typical soldier in Charlemange's army, Richard Plantagenet's army, or Henry V's army, he was well-armored. Using D&D standards, the Roman legionary was well-armored.

Maybe the OP means that the shield is very useful when your arms and legs are exposed? That is certainly less armour than has been worn in other points in history by those who could afford it. Armour is not just what it is made of; it is also what it covers.

The legs of a Roman legionary were usually covered by greaves, with the upper of the legs part often covered by the mail skirt of the lorica hamata (the most commonly worn armor of Roman legionnaries), or a skirt of leath studded with metal rivets. The arms were less protected, but mostly because the left arm was already protected by the shield, and thus armor was unnecessary for it. Look at the suit of banded armor pictured in the PHB, it covers exacly what was covered by the lorica segmentata - because the AC of an amor factors what it covers already, without having to resort to the unwieldy and cumbersome system of piecemeal armor.

 

[Turanil]

Maybe you should play another rpg.....D&D is what it is.

Another vote for this suggestion. There are plenty o nice games out there, really. You could begin with HARP (by Ice) or Savage Worlds, since they have free lite version of their games in PDF for download. True20 is another good call. As Teflon Billy says, D&D is its own genre. Sure, there are things that I don't like in D&D, but where you are concerned, it cannot be fixed.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Ergo, I give him (and likely you too, RC, based on many other threads) the same response as many others: "Don't play D&D. Play [insert game here], because it does exactly what you want."

Stop voting for the wrong company with your dollars.

It's very easy to like the overarching ruleset without liking everything that has been done with it. And, as many others have pointed out, the d20 system has enough extra source material (especially when you add third-party stuff) to be able to retool the game into just about anything.

I like peanut butter, but I am particular about what peanut butter I eat. I like curry paste too. MMMmmmmmmmmm, curry paste.........ahhhhhhhhh









Mr. Bishop!

Oh, I'm sorry. We were talking about curry paste?

That was ten minutes ago!

 

[Raven Crowking]

OK, Storm Raven, I'll agree. Compared to anyone who is less well armoured, Homer Simpson is well armoured.

OP made the point that Homer could wander about without being fully armoured (as did Sir Otto de Busdriver when jousting or driving to war) because of his superior shield. OP does not specifically mention how Homer used the shield in formation, only that the armour protection in the rules is less than what really would suggest.

However, narrowing in on the silly minutia of what Homer wore to the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant, as opposed to the OP's actual post, continues to be a straw man. MMMmmmmmmmmm, minutia.........ahhhhhhhhh









Mr. Bishop!

Oh, I'm sorry. We were talking about minutia?

That was ten minutes ago!

(BTW, which version of banded armour are you talking about? The attempted-to-be-accurate 2nd edition or the who-cares-add-some-spikes of 3rd edition?)

 

[buzz]

A top-to-bottom retooling, to me, is what would create exactly the game I want to play.

The point is, this retooling has been done many times over, and you can save yourself a lot of time and effort by just buying a copy. If you want to do it yourself (i.e., you gain enjoyment from the very process), then by all means, do so. I don't consider this advice I woudl give by default, however, given how many awesome RPGs are out there.

It seems that anytime anyone suggests changing the game (even their own campaign) to disallow anything, the Badfun Police show up to claim that the poster really just wants to criticize the way that they play the game.

Given that there's a whole forum here devoted to house rules, I don't really buy this. Not IME, at least.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

A top-to-bottom retooling, to me, is what would create exactly the game I want to play.

Maybe, but seriously, I think half the problem (at least) in many cases like the original poster's is a simple unawareness of just how broad a selection of other RPGs are out there. Why remake Game A into what Game L is? Why not just play Game L? At the very least, if a number of people are saying, "hey, that sounds like Game L, you might want to check it out," it might be an indication one would find Game L more to one's liking.

But, you are right, the "badfun" comment was snarky. It seems that anytime anyone suggests changing the game (even their own campaign) to disallow anything, the Badfun Police show up to claim that the poster really just wants to criticize the way that they play the game.

Well, since the reply was to me, and since I don't see any evidence in any of my posts of me trying to be the game police, and since I actually could give a crap about how anyone else plays, I don't see what your point was. I think anyone who has ever paid any attention to anything I've ever posted here would know I am firmly in the "play how you like, it's your game" camp. To suggest otherwise is ludicrous. You wanna tinker with the rules? Fine, go right ahead. Just don't sit and proselytize about how your tinkering needs to be implemented as the next edition of the game where I can read it. That's just baloney, and I'll call you on it.

I keep having to remember where I am, because my first instinct isn't to use the word "baloney."

 

[buzz]

It's very easy to like the overarching ruleset without liking everything that has been done with it.

There's a difference between not liking everything and not liking anything.

And, as many others have pointed out, the d20 system has enough extra source material (especially when you add third-party stuff) to be able to retool the game into just about anything.

Again, I feel that there's a point of diminishing returns. If one were to seek out, or create, alternatives to everything the OP listed, the resulting system would look so little like D&D, and so much like a hundred other systems already on the market, that it would beg the question as to why one is using D&D as a starting point in the first place.

Honestly, you're totally making moehills out of the mountains in the OP's post. He's not just looking for a tweak here and there. The amount of time, effort, and d20 product it would take to fix them all would cost ten times that of just going out and buying a copy of, say, GURPS... yet garner the same results. So why do it? Just so you can make a tacit claim that you're still playing "D&D"? Makes absolutely no sense to me.

I like peanut butter, but I am particular about what peanut butter I eat. I like curry paste too.

Right, but do you buy peanut butter you don't like and spend time in the kitchen modifying it to a kind you do like? Or do you just buy the kind you like?

And as for buying peanut butter and then trying to turn it into curry paste... forget it.

 

[freebfrost]

Unfortunately what he SOUNDS like he wants is something between the most amazingly complex rules based system ever (ex: coming up with a completely accurate means of determining how hard you are to hit) and a diceless game (ex: the GM determines exact EP values, simplified 2-handed rules, etc.).

The first part sounds like old Runequest and/or Chevalier (aka Chivalry & Sorcery) rules to me. Both had extremely complex combat systems that might satisfy the OP's desires to accurately portray combat.