[Venting] I feel a bit dirty...

[ColonelHardisson]

Honestly I fail to see why someones hopes for how the game should change to make it a better game for him would upset you that much. He's wording it very much as his personal opinion (at least the bit you quoted), so I don't see much to get upset about.

I agree, but the fact that it's a blog, open to the public, and can be replied to implies the blogger is inviting conversation. So responding is a natural response, but no sense in getting worked up over it. Anyway, as I've said before, if one finds some of the fundamental tropes of D&D irksome, rather than insist on pitching those 35-year-old tropes, which have endured because so many of us want them to endure, why not find a game closer to one's taste? There are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of RPGs out there. Most of them, I'd guess, don't have alignment, Vancian magic, and classes.

 

[diaglo]

Most of them, I'd guess, don't have alignment, Vancian magic, and classes.

qft.

diaglo "that's why i'm a D&D fanboi" Ooi

 

[Doug McCrae]

If you remove classes it's not D&D any more. Alignment and Vancian magic are also pretty central though I'm not sure if they're essential.

Here's my list of what you need to keep it D&D -

Classes
Levels
The level progression track ie the huge power shift from low to high level
Plethora of monsters and magic items

MAYBE: Vancian magic
MAYBE: Alignment
MAYBE: Hit points

 

[Steel_Wind]

Classes stay - alignment stays... but I don't think Vancian magic is going to survive 4th edition.

The impact of the spell system upon online play is too large. And that's where the longterm money is.

Like it or not, there it is.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Why do you need more classes than you have players? For the 'typical' four player game, four classes is fine. I also have a lot of liking for the elegance of the three class system in d20 - warrior, caster, skill guy - though sadly Unearthed Arcana's implementation of it doesn't work. This is still very much a game with classes, in my view.

 

[an_idol_mind]

I think that eventually alignment will be ditched or made entirely optional. It's been taking an increasingly diminished role throughout the editions. I really don't have an opinion of whether that's a good or bad thing. Lots of players I've gamed with hate alignment, but I've never seen it as much of an issue.

I like the Vancian spell system; it's easy to manage and to introduce to new players. I don't care if a spell point system is eventually introduced, but if it is, it better be a nice, simple, and easy to explain mechanic.

The notion of taking classes out of D&D boggles my mind. AD&D tried the point-buy experiment with Skills & Powers, and it was terrible. Classes make it easy to introduce new players to the game (You want to play a thief? Okay, you're a level 1 rogue), but also have enough flexibility to fit most concepts (You want to play a swashbuckling dragon ninja? Okay, take some levels in ninja, sorcerer, and dragon disciple). The fantasy genre itself is one that makes extensive use of class-like archetypes, and D&D itself has always been built on a class/level system. IMO, folks who want a point-buy system should find another game; D&D is obviously not their bag.

 

[RFisher]

Interestingly, there's never been a supplement that's focused on removing just alignment from standard D&D/Fantasy d20 without making other, broader changes worked into that.

The thing about alignment is that it's always been pretty ignorable. When a mechanic actually references it, you just use whatever the player wrote on his character record & completely ignore alignment the rest of the time. So, I think most people are happy to just ignore it rather than think too much about removing it.

Alignment is good thing, but I would like to see more effects on actual game... current alignment thing is kind of half-baked.

See, I think that adding something like this is killing a D&D sacred cow as much as removing classes. Any official change along those lines would need to be structured as an optional rule or annoy a lot of players.

Why do you need more classes than you have players? For the 'typical' four player game, four classes is fine. I also have a lot of liking for the elegance of the three class system in d20 - warrior, caster, skill guy - though sadly Unearthed Arcana's implementation of it doesn't work. This is still very much a game with classes, in my view.

Because you don't just play one campaign. You don't just play four campaigns. After you've played all four of the classes & the same mix of classes in the party a bunch of times, you might like something different.

Well...I guess. Personally, I don't feel much need for a bunch of classes. Indeed, I'd always wished 3e had gone farther in the "fewer but more flexible classes" direction. Maybe not as far as the generic classes/True20 route, but farther than it did.

 

[Desdichado]

Eh. I agree with the original blogger who provoked the rant at least on the first two points and I'm ambivalent on classes, but why sweat it? I usually prefer to play other games than D&D. My current homebrew; after struggling with making it work with a D&D ruleset, has been migrated around to various options, currently residing in a d20 Modern + d20 Past ruleset, as if it were the Shadow Stalkers campaign model, but in a fantasy world. I guess I don't understand the implication that D&D has to do anything at all, when I can just pick up some other set of mechanics to use if I don't like D&D.

In any case, he's just blogging about what he'd like to see D&D change to in order to make it worthwhile to him so I don't see the point in getting upset over his comments either.

 

[Desdichado]

Well...I guess. Personally, I don't feel much need for a bunch of classes. Indeed, I'd always wished 3e had gone farther in the "fewer but more flexible classes" direction. Maybe not as far as the generic classes/True20 route, but farther than it did.

Well, it needs to do one or the other. I was bored with the basic 3e classes about a year after the game came out. There was some initial excitement around the possibilities of multiclassing (which was disappointing; I decided that I'd rather have a single class that does what I want rather than try to cobble together one by taking levels of this and that) and playing unusual archetypes--dwarven wizards, half-orc bards, halfling barbarians, etc.

Honestly, I'd rather have fewer and more flexible classes too--and personally I think that's the direction WotC is headed with regards to all their games, if d20 Modern and the Saga Edition of Star Wars is any guide. But since they haven't done that for D&D, I'm glad that I at least have three times as many core classes to choose from as we did when we started; I'm much more likely to be able to find something I want to play now.

 

[Alzrius]

The thing about alignment is that it's always been pretty ignorable. When a mechanic actually references it, you just use whatever the player wrote on his character record & completely ignore alignment the rest of the time. So, I think most people are happy to just ignore it rather than think too much about removing it.

There's more to it than just checking what alignment a character is when he's hit with a dictum spell though. There's also alignment as a form of damage reduction, meaning that'd have to be recalculated into some other form of DR. Alignment traits from planes would be gone, making them somewhat more bland unless replacement traits were made. Things like "smite evil" would need to be retooled, etc.