The problem with D&D

[Xini]

The only rule system that can't be broken is the one the players agree not to.

Also, check out Mutants and Masterminds 2E. While it's nominally (in the sense that it would work equally for other genres) a superhero game, its also the best example I've seen of a classless d20 derived-system. Plus, it's not as much of the stretch for D&D players as the Hero system or GURPS.

Being classless (and intended to model supers), it would take a little up-front design work to create a framework suitable for a typical high fantasy campaign, but nothing too difficult.

Agreed on the rules front. I've had to kind of remould this guy so he now plays characters instead of just stats. His PCs tend to be more effective than a legion still but hell they're doing it in style.

We did have a look at Mutant's and Masterminds. It is remarkably simple (a minus point to me but good for learners). I am very impressed with how unbreakable it is, though I suppose the idea is portable to D&D too. Impose limits on caster levels, stats & skill mods etc. It should stop the problem which once came up of a character with an AC of 99! (That was my character too!! I had good reason but still..)

 

[Razz]

Okay so me and my friend have spent many hours going over this again and again with possible solutions and theories. So far we reckon that either we need to abandon D&D or completely rewrite it.

The flaws in brief (as far as I can remember them)

#1 Power disparity
This is kind of the primary flaw in the whole system. A 3rd level fighter can probably take down two 1st level fighters. A 10th level fighter could quite conceivably take down a company of 1st level characters. Generally unless the lower level combatants start to use advanced tactics to ensure flanking bonuses and stacking aid anothers then they are like so much cream cheese in front of the death dealing monster.

Um, duh. A 10th level fighter is a powerhouse, 15th level a legend, 20th level a supreme master...21st and beyond just the stuff for epic tales. A 10th level should be able to take down several, if not dozens, of 1st levels. It's up to the 1st levels to figure out how to take down the 10th level guy.

#2 Class System
Right well your a wizard, you adventure for six months in the wilderness and come back with more knowledge of architecture??? Survival still remains cross class no matter what you do. Oh and wizards are just refused armour completely. Basically the whole concept of classes is restrictive and seems more like a good excuse to release reams of books than out of any intrinsic value to the idea. Oh and this also leads to the temptation to make the classes in the next book slightly more powerful or attractive than the last to try to tempt more people to buy the book.

Um, dude, it's called multiclassing or placing your points in cross-class skills. Simple. It's also the DMs call on that. A proper DM would not allow a character who has been in a desert for the entire quest to place like 6 ranks in Swim so suddenly, for example. Also, the wizard, if the character is "Role Playing" and not "Roll Playing" should take a level of Ranger or Scout.[/quote]

#3 The whole d20 thing
Basically the d20 idea is not a good one from a statistics point of view and neither is it any good for representing what a person can reliably do as compared to what they could potentially do (ok that's like a reiteration of the statistics point). D&D has a flat probability curve. You are as likely to roll a 20 as a 1. That alone doesn't sound too bad but when you consider that 10 is basically a reliable result to reflect normal responses but rolling a 9 means failure then it's getting too twitchy and isn't a reliable result at all. There are ways around this but whilst still using the D20 system it tends to lead to more capability than you wanted and more cost than you can afford.

So what doy uo propose? A d30?

#4 Break points
Right well let's assume that your playing the game and your happy with the rules structure. At first level everything is deadly. Stubbing your toe can force you to return to a safe haven and rest up for 3 weeks whilst you regain your confidence. Now through your career your progressing (usually at an alarming rate or one so dull as to be torturous) and you hit some "break" points. The first is around level 6 and the others are usually about level 12 and leel 16, roughly in line with when a full BAB character gains an additional attack. At these points it seems your abilities suddenly shift up a gear and you become more than a mere level above your previous point. This is quite odd but it's all to do with how the level system works out and the way all those charts sum together.
Quite often what was a challenge the day before is now a walk over and you feel much more powerful. This would represent real life only in terms of psychology but here it's made real. Of course in about 2 levels your back to your normal state of pride ready for the next break but that's an aside.

I'm confused. What's the problem here? You made a statement, you haven't stated what the problem was, though.

#5 Magic
Okay so fantasy needs magic like Star Trek needs to be able to beam people or create food from nothing but the present philosophy regarding magic is terrible. Any time something happens which is not explained by what we regard as reality, it's labelled as magic. Strangely however it seems that magic is actually about a dozen different elements working in concert. No regard is paid to making any kind of sense with magic, it is just left completely open as some kind of weird thing which just does what it wants and yet conforms to the petty rules laid out in the books. Why oh why is there such restricted and tightly defined spells with almost no allowance for customisation and yet virtually anything can and will be explained away with a singular mention of the word magic. Personally I'd like to see some kind of overall general capabilities of magic which are guidelines for what magic can and cannot do whilst simultaneously relaxing the borders on spells so that a fireball (for instance) is not it's own spell but rather something you can do with a certain level of skill in a fire based spell. It'd be quite simple to break down most spells into various categories so that skills could be used and then each casters personal choice on where they place their skill points would be reflected in their capability with their spell selection.

Er, this is more of a home rules issue than a D&D issue. Try a different system if you don't like D&D's.

As you can see just from that we pretty much shot the system to pieces. Why not change systems? Well we have a group of dedicated D&D players (read can't be arsed to learn a new set of rules) and the system is simple and keeps moving. If only it did not grind so much when people stopped just walking up and trying to trade blows in a static fashion.

We have looked into some alternatives but it seems that all of them are trying to differentiate themselves too much from D&D and end up being acquired tastes (something our players aren't liable to do willingly).

I do hope that any version 4 that the mages of muhlah come up with is an improvement but I fear that they believe so strongly in the d20 religion and the infallibility of the original D&D concepts that we are liable to be left with a simple rehash of what exists now, including all the flaws.

Yes we could just look for new players but we like the current lot (changing the system from ground up would be preferable to changing friends).

Oh and yes if your thinking that I'm a little old school then that's true. I do hanker after the days of musty black and white rule books with long words in them and a recommended age past ten. I don't see that as bad though as I increasingly am finding role-playing games getting "dumbed down" to attract larger portions of the populace. Thank he who always rolls 20 that Hero still exists as a paragon of complexity and I shall always be forever grateful for the unwieldy system of GURPS and all it's multitude of expansions. These systems show what's possible when you really want detail. D&D should not be consigned to the oversimplified section of role-play games. It should be the middle ground, the nexus and it's just so not.

So play old school D&D, then. I happen to like the system as it is. I have a few problems with it, but I am sorry to say that the PERFECT gaming system does not exist and never will. Make some house rules and enjoy your D&D game. The End.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

As for errors vs design decisions, I think that's just a question of perspective.

Not really, the two have very different definitions. In the DMG, the designers talk about a lot of the logic behind how the designed the game. A lot of the Dragon articles in the ramp-up to D&D addressed this stuff as well. There's only so much they felt they could change before it would stop being D&D (and there are folks who feel that they already crossed that line as-is).

 

[Umbran]

LOL! I'm not used to people being so errr... sensitive (if you'll forgive the term).

Well, Xini, allow me to welcome you to EN World, and use this as an opportunity to point you to The Rules - our posting guidelines. As broad generalizations - avoid politics, real-world religion, and be respectful of your fellow posters.

Note that we try to optimize for discussion and exchange of ideas. That means phrasing a personal opinion as an objective fact (saying "X is bad" rather than "I don't like X") will tend to be received poorly, because it does not admit that other people could legitimately like the thing. And we are pretty big on the idea that how you play the game is a matter of taste, and that different folks can validly have different tastes.

So, as an example - really, these things are not objective errors. They are just things you don't like. Other people do like them. Why not ask why folks like them (you might learn something, and change your own mind), or how to get around them within the system?

 

[Arashi Ravenblade]

What you see as flaws are really non-issues. Every system has things that make you kinda of roll your eyes. But d20 and D&D inparticular is so close to perfect that all other games pale in comparison. If you dont like the current D&D d20 ruleset change it. Thats whats great about d20 you can do anything with it. And the nay sayers are probably not smart enough or creative enough or just too dang lazy to make it what they want. Or better yet. If you feel you can do better make your own game.
Thats what Im doing with Super-heroes. No system fits my style so im making a point based variation of the d20 system for supers. If you want something done your way, do it yourself.

 

[Xini]

Nice intention, but sadly already done to death

Ah. I did search around for this topic but I couldn't find any previous references. Mind you I could have been more thorough in my searches I suppose. My apologies.

Hmm... then you're problem is not with D&D, but rather with a DM who doesn't limit stuff.

The problem in specific is that we're dealing with quite capricious DMs. Things they like are allowed or overwritten at the drop of a hat where as stuff which they take objection to are banned there and then. This makes for a quite choppy experience of the rules in the game and what is allowed and what is not. Mind you though the amount of arguing the group cana get into over the slightest change I can almost see why they get so hardline.

In fact, if you're using the video game-comparison... expansion packs do give new options!
You just don't have to play with them.
See, that's what I mean with limiting. If stuff annoys you too much, don't use it.

Yeah the whole allowing this but disallowing that thing possibly produces more arguments than anything else. The DM in one game has just issued a list of approved prestige classes. Being 2nd level one complained as his class had been banned and he'd gone down a specific route to get into it. The long and the short of it is that I now have a gnomish paladin on a dog to deal with.

You know I'm sure that cutting grass is not evil... especially in this case

Well, for one thing that's the beauty of classes - they tie some stuff together, ensuring balance much better than point-buying.

They do. I have supported the class systems in the past but these days I see the fl... sorry design decision ( ) where all you have to do is take one level of this, two levels of that and hay presto it's a new class. Certainly makes for balance issues!

Second: Every system is breakable - that's rather a problem with the players if they try hard to break it.

That's a flaw in a role-play games conception and also how I ended up with an AC of 99. If something threatens your life then you'd do everything you could to halt it. Ergo you'd use any and all improvements you can find. End result, a character which is damn near impossible to kill!

Third: Well, that's right - flavour is really a matter of tast.. I like Shadowrun (3rd, never touched 4th), but I think the flavour is goofy.

Shadowrun's flavour is goofy? Odd description but I think I get your drift.

 

[Fifth Element]

That's a flaw in a role-play games conception and also how I ended up with an AC of 99.

I was almost tempted to ask about that AC (in another thread I think...) but then I recalled the last time someone brought something like that up...

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Oh and yes if your thinking that I'm a little old school then that's true. I do hanker after the days of musty black and white rule books with long words in them and a recommended age past ten.

How on earth do you think these issues were less prevalent in earlier editions? The very notion makes my head spin. If they are issues for you, they are issues for you, but character flexibility (armored wizards, cc skills etc) is vastly increased, and balance is a stated goal, as opposed to imbalance in classes.

 

[S'mon]

Hmm. I'd say play C&C. It's like D&D but simpler, and has much less of these problems.

First up, your worries about skill points disappear.

Start at 1st level with max hit points, and use C&C's standard 1-12 level demographic. Apply as follows:

1. Most people are 0th level.
2. 1st levellers are either veterans (the grizzled mercenary sergeant), or talented but untested (the youngest of the king's huscarls).
3. 2nd-4th levellers are powerful leaders, mercenary lieutenants and captains, heads of temples, mid-rank wizards.
4. 5th-8th levellers are mighty heroes. A trusted Castellan might be 5th. Sir John Hawkswoord, commander of the White Company of 20,000 mercenaries, might be 8th.
6. 9th-12th are the legends - Arthur. Cuchalainn. Conan.

You'll find this pretty much solves the power disparity problem. Do you worry that King Arthur can draw Excalibur and kill a hundred Saxons? I don't. Not that a 10th level C&C Paladin _can_ kill a hundred 1d8-hp mooks without some serious magic items, anyway.

 

[Xini]

Well, Xini, allow me to welcome you to EN World, and use this as an opportunity to point you to The Rules - our posting guidelines. As broad generalizations - avoid politics, real-world religion, and be respectful of your fellow posters.

Note that we try to optimize for discussion and exchange of ideas. That means phrasing a personal opinion as an objective fact (saying "X is bad" rather than "I don't like X") will tend to be received poorly, because it does not admit that other people could legitimately like the thing. And we are pretty big on the idea that how you play the game is a matter of taste, and that different folks can validly have different tastes.

So, as an example - really, these things are not objective errors. They are just things you don't like. Other people do like them. Why not ask why folks like them (you might learn something, and change your own mind), or how to get around them within the system?

I did in fact read the "rules" but they did not state anything like what you suggest with any clarity. Neither, in point of fact, does the posts of present members within this thread but as I said I expected some flak.

As for objectivity versus subjectivity, I try to avoid philosophical arguments when discussing D&D and to be 100% completely true, right and unimpeachable would mean I'd have not posted it as I'd already be accepting my nobel prize or something.

I apologise if I sound irritated but, as this is my first thread, perhaps you could leave the chiding for repeat offenders or make more comprehensive rules.