The top 100 'Sacred Cows' of Roleplaying

[Rystil Arden]

(Just to clarify then and not opining one way or the other): Is #13 intended to say that the GM should not have the final say?

 

[Li Shenron]

I usually call "sacred cows" bits of rules concepts which are ported to new editions without contesting them, such as "wizards and armor shall not go together" or "clerics must be all good at fighting".

On your line of thought instead, I'd say the following:

#14 - More material always means a better game

#15 - Money must necessary be one of the most important thing in D&D, and everything should be sold and bought

 

[blargney the second]

#16 - Rolling stats.

 

[Chris Lawrence]

#17 Games shouldn't be realistic. Those who like realism don't realise that the point of the game is fun and realism isn't fun.

#18 It's only fun if it's new and 'original'. Things that have been done before are tres boring dahling.

#19 Hit points make sense and the correct rational explanation for them is MY explanation.

#20 Every gamer has his or her own style and it's impossible to teach someone to be a better roleplayer.

#21 Quality in RPGs is entirely subjective.

I could go on, but I'll try and control myself.

 

[Rystil Arden]

#22 (the foil to 17): Games, even fantasy games, are pointless if they are not realistic to the last detail, based on my definition of realism of course. 20% of adventuring parties can expect to die of starvation. If you get cut by a sword and survive, you will likely contract a fatal infection, but count yourself lucky because my hyper-realistic table of what happens when you get hit by a sword has a 60% chance to kill you outright, derived from real-world data of how often sword-blows are fatal.

 

[Bront]

#23: More Powerful = More Fun

 

[CF]

#24: Writters using role-playing to justify avoidance to a broken rules system.

#25: The peasant to king evolution. You should always start as weak as possible to just power up during game.

 

[Psion]

Rystil's batting 1000 in my book.

Most of these seem to be D&Dism's, but I'll offer up one that tends to get trotted out in favor of change or against D&D.
#24: That "choice" is a trump card in character creation methods.
Unbounded freedom is not a universal good in character creation. It can be bad to the goals of the game (fun *for everyone*) and can be difficult to manage.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Rystil's batting 1000 in my book.

Just more evidence of why I tend to agree with your reviews.

 

[Hussar]

(Just to clarify then and not opining one way or the other): Is #13 intended to say that the GM should not have the final say?

Nope. That's the entire reason for Rule 0 IMO. To allow DM's to smooth over bumps and get on with the game. Someone needs to have final authority and that someone needs to be the DM.

However, when the DM starts to abuse that authority and then points to Rule 0, that's the sacred cow that needs to be turned into kibbles. Rule 0 has been touted to mean that the DM is ALWAYS right. This is simply not true. Rule 0 is a means of conflict resolution, not carte blanche for every DM with a penchant for megalomania. Perhaps I should rephrase:

13. The DM is infallible.