The Sacred Cow Slaughterhouse: Ideas you think D&D's better without

[Remathilis]

This topic has begun to make me wary.

There are literally hundreds or other RPG systems out there. And many are fantasy focused.
All that separates D&D from these is its name and sacred cows, both story and mechanical.

Characters
Character levels
Dice "checks"
Hand waving stuff
Showing the players the rules
Theater of the mind
Fudging

Rarely ever do two posts so perfectly line up like these two.

Personally, I think there are too many people lining up for divine steak these days. The sheer number of people who want Vancian Magic, Alignment, +1 swords, halflings, elves, bards, arcane/divine split, rogue, and "Insert X here" elements is mindblowing. I mean, I don't like gnomes much but I accept they have a place in the PHB, even if I don't play them. The fact that there are so many "X doesn't belong" threads bothers me; D&D tried "radical change" for its own sake and did miserable for it. If anything, we need MORE sacred cows brought back, not removed.

 

[billd91]

Personally, I think there are too many people lining up for divine steak these days. The sheer number of people who want Vancian Magic, Alignment, +1 swords, halflings, elves, bards, arcane/divine split, rogue, and "Insert X here" elements is mindblowing. I mean, I don't like gnomes much but I accept they have a place in the PHB, even if I don't play them. The fact that there are so many "X doesn't belong" threads bothers me; D&D tried "radical change" for its own sake and did miserable for it. If anything, we need MORE sacred cows brought back, not removed.

Well, sacred cows are sacred for a reason. That said, there does come a time when some sacred cows can be allowed to wander away. Armor class getting better as it gets lower was replaced with a more easily usable alternative so it was time for that cow to go. I think that the reasoning behind capping damage for damaging spells based on their level, introduced in 2e, was undermined by giving monsters constitution bonuses and allowing characters to gain hit dice every level so I think it's time for that to go. Fortunately, I don't really think that's a particularly sacred cow so it shouldn't be as heavily protected.

 

[Remathilis]

Well, sacred cows are sacred for a reason. That said, there does come a time when some sacred cows can be allowed to wander away. Armor class getting better as it gets lower was replaced with a more easily usable alternative so it was time for that cow to go. I think that the reasoning behind capping damage for damaging spells based on their level, introduced in 2e, was undermined by giving monsters constitution bonuses and allowing characters to gain hit dice every level so I think it's time for that to go. Fortunately, I don't really think that's a particularly sacred cow so it shouldn't be as heavily protected.

I think there is a difference between damage caps and say, alignment. There is a difference between the rules and the expression of the rules. For example, saving throws is a rule; having saves be vs. spells, vs. Fortitude, or vs. Strength is an expression. Its a fine line to cross. My general theory is you can revamp the math all you want, but you want to keep the feel of the game. 4e changed the feel too much, I'd like to see the pendulum swing back. So far, Next feels like the game I loved so its changes (such as bounded accuracy) don't bother me.

I really just dislike when people want to remove elements that D&D is notorious for: Tolkien races, fighters, wizards, clerics, rogues, nine alignments, +1 items, Vancian magic (at least as an option), etc. These are non-negotiable.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

The least favorite parts that I have always wanted to strip out are hit points and classes.

But if you take these out the game really doesn't feel like D&D anymore.

I say leave the herd alone and let D&D be D&D. When I want to play a game with different mechanics there are plenty of other games out there.

 

[Campbell]

More than any particular rules element, I would change the tone of the game's writing to emphasize that it's a shared group activity. I'd highlight that everyone sitting at that table with you is an actual human being with thoughts and feelings. I would base the advice in the DMG on organizational research that shows how to be an effective leader and get the best out of your players.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I say leave the herd alone and let D&D be D&D. When I want to play a game with different mechanics there are plenty of other games out there.

Agreed.

 

[Stormonu]

The idea that D&D as a whole has sacred cows that deserve to be slaughtered for no reason other than change for changes sake.

That sort of design should be limited to campaign-specific tweaks, and rarely or never undertaken for a campaign setting that existed prior to sending whatever particular cow to the slaughter.

Yeah, I think designers and us observers have been too exhilarated with the idea of "fixing" D&D that we don't realize we're destroying what makes it feel like D&D. The game is a tapestry that if you go pulling at this or that string, you run the risk of turning it into something unrecognizable. There should be a strive to add to the game, not seek to take things away from it. I'm not against shoring up the weak spots in the mechanics, but the mechanics-fluff interactions need to be handled with care.

 

[Hussar]

The idea that just because something was canon before it must always be canon and must never, ever be touched.

If something can't stand up on its own, turn it into hamburger. Just because it was that way before is, IMNSHO, the worst reason to keep something.

 

[delericho]

None. Sacred cows are sacred.

An individual setting can change whatever it wants. An individual group can change whatever it wants - and the rules can certainly be structured to help them.

But the game as a whole? It is what it is.

 

[pemerton]

More than any particular rules element, I would change the tone of the game's writing to emphasize that it's a shared group activity.

Yes. D&D could easily benefit from better GMing advice. For instance, the 4e DMG in dicussing combat encounters has pages and pages of terrific advice on how to set up and adjudicate their tactical dimensions, but has virtually nothing to say about setting up and adjudicating the story function(s) of a combat encounter.

PS

Plane Shift? Planescape? I tend to agree with the latter, and also with changing alignment from its AD&D/3E version (I prefer the Basic/4e version, both for story reasons and also because I think it works better at the table).