The problem with D&D

[RedFox]

The game can be a lot of fun to play.

Then it works. Why worry overmuch about the niggly stuff if it's fun to play?

I'm not being facetious here. Nitpicking the fun out of stuff is a trap I've fallen into myself time and again, and it's easy to do when you're really interested in something, because you pick it apart and analyze it.

But at the end of the day, you're munching cheetohs and rolling dice, talking about your elf wizard turning orcs into ice statues. It's not Serious Business (tm).

To my mind D&D 3.5 is a game with out limits.

It's kind of open-ended, but I think everyone can vouch that it rather breaks down at high levels. Moreover, I think a game with Skill rank caps per level and such isn't really limitless.

But the solution is simple, really... put limits on the game. Cap everyone at 18th or 20th level. Don't introduce monsters that exceed CR22 or so. Voila, done.

 

[phindar]

One thing that helped me with the power disparity in D&D was to look at it like this: below 10th level, its a gritty to heroic fantasy game. Above 10th, it starts turning into a Superheroes game. So think of 8th level on as the creation myth of your superhero.

 

[IcyCool]

Urban Knight, take my suggestion to Xini above and take a look at Alternity. I think you'll like it, quite a bit.

 

[RedFox]

One thing that helped me with the power disparity in D&D was to look at it like this: below 10th level, its a gritty to heroic fantasy game. Above 10th, it starts turning into a Superheroes game. So think of 8th level on as the creation myth of your superhero.

This is an excellent point, and reminds one of the "name" level dichotomy in old D&D, where at level 9 you'd start playing a very different game than you'd played previously.

 

[Sir Elton]

A game designed around diminishing returns isn't all that bad. My favorite game system is . . . TADA . . . Rolemaster.

I like rolemaster, a lot. Although it has a "class" system. There really isn't any concept "limits." Just on how tough to learn skills. I think you aught to take a look at Rolemaster also.

Elton.

 

[Storm Raven]

I think the problem with D&D is that it's not the kind of game you want or like.

I think this is apparent to just about everyone. D&D is not always the best fit for what you want out of gaming. It works for lots and lots of stuff, and there are few games better for superheroic fantasy, but sometimes that's not what the setting and tone you are going for needs.

I have been putting together a new campaign, and about a month into my preliminary work, I realized that what I want would work much better using the GURPS system than the D&D system. Not that it couldn't be done using D&D, it could. But that I would need to make fewer house rules if I used GURPS. So I'm planning on using GURPS this time around.

 

[T. Foster]

I am going to have to disagree completely. (I suppose we could always ask him.) While Gygax did use a d20 in both D&D and AD&D, he used a table driven system for those d20's as they were used in combat and saving throws. The result was both non linear (the best example is the large zone in the combat tables for a result of 20) and non uniform. Unlike d20, rolling one better on the dice did not have the same uniform effect for all classes.

Your objection (which, honestly, I'm not sure I even understand) seems tangential to my original point, which wasn't based on how the tables are structured but rather on the distribution of the die roll itself -- a 1d20 roll has a wide, flat distribution, and a +1 modifier will always increase your chance of success by 5%, no more, no less, as opposed to other rolls where a +1 might increase your chance of success by 16.67% (1d6), 10% (1d10), 1% (d%) or a different amount depending on what your target is (any roll of 2 or more dice -- rolling 2d6 a +1 modifier makes a whole lot more difference if it changes your target from 8 to 7 than if it changes it from 12 to 11). D&D used the wide, flat d20 distribution for combat and saving throws, but used other rolls for surprise, initiative, finding secret doors, opening stuck doors (d6), bending bars, surviving a system shock, thieves' attempts to hide in shadows, move silently, and pick locks (d%), monster and NPC reactions (2d6), retainer loyalty (3d6), and so on. A +1 on initiative means more than a +1 to hit, a lot more than +1 to bend bars, and might mean more or might mean about the same as a +1 reaction (depending on the roll).

D20, by using the same rolls with the same modifiers for everything, changes the feel. A point of strength helps you to hit in combat just as much, no more and no less, than it does to open a stuck door or bend an iron bar, which happens to also be just as much as a point of Dex helps you on initiative, how much a point of Con helps you to survive a system shock, and how much a point of Charisma helps you to make a good impression on an NPC. Some people (a lot of people, almost certainly a large majority) seem to prefer this, because it's simpler, but it's never sat well with me, both because I like different probabilities and different adjustments for different activities, and because if I were to settle on a single probability distribution for everything it definitely wouldn't be 1d20.

 

[Modin Godstalker]

Use Runequest

Runequest is a great game that would address most of the problems you have with D&D. It is much deadlier though, so players can't just go rushing into combat.

I can't remember which edition though. Either 2nd to 3rd, not the new one that just came out.

 

[S'mon]

As the friend who has spent many hours lamenting on what we perceive as the 'flaws' of DnD, I feel I should put my two pence worth into this discusion.

In my oppinion D&D 3.5's greatest strength is that it is so closely based upon AD&D.

As a child I loved basic D&D and AD&D, and I have to admit I like D&D 3.5 a lot.

The game system was and still is relatively simple....

...Unfortunately it is this very design principle that makes the power disparity inherent in the original AD&D system even worse in 3.5. At least in AD&D PC's stopped getting HD + Con Bonus after 9th level, could never get and AC better than -10 and would never hit AC0 with less than a 3 (before modifiers) hell Monsters would never hit AC0 with less than a 6.

I guess what I am saying is good framework needs limiting factors, PC's should always be able to advance but as a PC becomes beter at something it becomes harder to get better.

To my mind D&D 3.5 is a game with out limits.

Yeah, you guys SERIOUSLY just need to get Castles & Crusades. It sounds like exactly what you want from a game, Urban Knight. Basically a cleaned up, smoother playing 1e with the best bits of Basic/Expert. And infinitely customisable - eg I can use BECMI 'War Machine' rules & other bits from the Rules Cyclopedia, I can use my 1e Monster Manual, I can use 'Ghost Tower of Inverness', practically as if they were written for C&C.

 

[molonel]

I've been learning and playing more GURPs lately, and I'll third (or fourth, or fifth) the recommendation to try that. It's an excellent game with a level of granularity and detail that D&D cannot possibly achieve. It puts mortals on about the same level, and offers a mortality and grittiness that is difficult to achieve under the D&D rules.