What don't you like about D&D?

[scourger]

I don't like that I don't like it as much anymore. I don't know why exactly. I think I never really liked all the magic, yet it makes the game fun. It just seems to make it too complicated. I'm afraid Savage Worlds may have killed d20 for me. I just don't want to devote big blocks of time & effort to gaming--especially preparation; but killing time on the computer reading about gaming still feels fun. Go figure.

 

[RFisher]

This points to one of the oddest design decisions in D&D, to dramatically increase individual characters' hit points with level, but not to increase their AC at all, and to increase their to-hit bonus slightly, while not increasing their damage at all.

If anything, I'd increase to-hit and AC dramatically, increase damage slightly, and leave hit points static.

I feel much the same way. That's more the direction I've gone in most of my homebrew or variant-d20-system attempts.

Yet, there's no contending the success of the D&D choices here. Heck, how many computer games have used a slight variation on the D&D to-hit/AC/hp/damage system?

Yes and no. If you imagined your fighting man as a swashbuckler type, ala the Three Musketeers or Errol Flynn as Robin Hood, you'd have had some trouble because there were no rules to support you and in fact several rules that seemed to state that only thieves could do some of the stuff you thought you should be able to.

I finally came to the conclusion that if you want to buckle-swashes, than D&D isn't the game you should be playing. Maybe less true with later editions, but even with 3e, I think there are other games that handle swashbuckling better. That doesn't really bug me so much anymore since a swashbuckler seems much more out of place in the ambient D&D setting to me than when I was a kid.

(Or maybe, it was because I used to try to shoehorn D&D onto settings it wasn't suited for. I'm much happier with D&D since adopting a "let D&D be D&D" point of view.)

I think the older game made a mistake in enumerating things like move in shadows and climb walls as thief-only abilities, rather than giving thieves a bonus.

I certainly felt that way as well. I've since come to see the thief skills in the older game as powerful abilities rather than mundane skills. Hide in shadows. Move silently. Climb sheer surfaces.

I'll be the first to admit, however, that--if that was indeed what was intended--they did a poor job of communicating it. Or maybe I just had poor reading comprehension. But I suspect it's more of the former than the latter. If they had covered mundane hiding/sneaking/climbing better & referenced such in the descriptions of the thief skills...

I (ironically now) clearly remember the argument I had with a friend that the names of the thief skill were hyperbole; that his thief wasn't really moving without making any sound. Now I think he had it exactly right.

 

[RFisher]

Oh, & I forgot to mention the magic system. I long had a problem with D&D magic. Especially since the arguments for it didn't really hold water. Why would managing spell points be any greater a burden on players than managing hit points? Besides, it is a spell point system, just a complex one.

After having played a lot of other systems now, though, I can see some benefits to D&D magic, though I don't know quite how to express them. I guess my "let D&D be D&D" attitude, however, is the real key to me having learned to just enjoy it & just pick a different system when I want something different.

 

[Psion]

Oh, & I forgot to mention the magic system. I long had a problem with D&D magic. Especially since the arguments for it didn't really hold water. Why would managing spell points be any greater a burden on players than managing hit points?

1 - Because dice rolls are simpler to deal with than table look-ups (one reason why I prefer my recently purchased hit location dice to hit location charts).
2 - Because that's one more tally you need to keep track of.
3 - You don't really manage HP beyond knowing that if you stand next to the big bad thing, you are going to get hurt. You manage spell/power points.

I like psionics (obviously), but I do consider it an advanced technique. I appreciate the presence of Vancian magic for players without a head for numbers and when I don't want to be troubled with augments, or analyzing whether using this power will leave me with enough points for something I want to do later, and the like.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

This points to one of the oddest design decisions in D&D, to dramatically increase individual characters' hit points with level, but not to increase their AC at all, and to increase their to-hit bonus slightly, while not increasing their damage at all.

If anything, I'd increase to-hit and AC dramatically, increase damage slightly, and leave hit points static.

It's not odd at all if you consider the way in which HP-based combat tends to play out vs. a "one-shot kill, hard-to-hit"-based combat.

The latter, when playing out, generally looks like:

• Miss, miss, miss, miss, miss, miss, , miss, hit, dead.

The former, when playing out, looks like:

• Miss, hit (for 10% HP), miss, hit (for 20% HP), hit (for 10% HP), hit (for 30% HP), miss, hit (for 30% HP), dead.

What are the benefits of the latter?

1. It more conforms to people's ideas of realism, where getting stabbed with a sword just once usually ends a fight

What are the benefits of the former?

1. It allows players to get in more hits in an average combat, which is more exciting than misses
2. The chances of a single hit ending combat (on either side) is lower; which leads to ...
3. Greater predictability in the duration and lethality of combat
4. Players, who are able to watch declining HP totals, have a better understanding of a combat's progress

As regards point 4, it is very, very difficult to get an accurate (or even quasi-accurate) read on how a fight is going when there's no particular measure of round-by-round degradation. If you've spent three rounds trading misses, are you winning? Tieing? In over your head?

The benefits of the HP-based approach are part of the reason that the new Star Wars d20 system is moving away from WP / VP (a middle ground between the above systems) and back to HPs (with the addition of a new "condition track").

 

[molonel]

Abstract hit points obviously have their problems, but for my money, it beats Russian Roulette for drama value and tension in combat any day.

 

[werk]

What don't you like about D&D?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And what (if anything) do you do to address it?

My main complaint about D&D is how many cry-baby complainers play it. People that want to argue things that really have no importance, and draw sweeping judgement calls ignorantly. People that insist on rolling fumbles on a 1 because "they always have" and literally no other reason. People that aren't fun to play with because they are literally too stupid or antisocial or inflexible to HAVE a good time.

What to do about it? I just keep going through player after group after player...eventually I get a solid group formed up and we really enjoy the time we share. It's like separating the wheat from the chaff.

Once you resolve my issue above, it doesn't really matter what the mechanics are, it always works great.

 

[Ed_Laprade]

When in doubt, the mechanics should err on the side of abtraction. A magic system so specific to one unusual fantasy story is a poor choice, when a vague system using "magic points" (or whatever) could mean whatever the players wanted it to mean.

I agree with a lot of the things said in this thread, but this one rankles the most. Mainly because I've heard a number of times that the original magic system designed by Arneson (sp?) did use magic points, but Gygax made a last minute change without even metioning it to him. While it does have certain advantages for a game, when that game advertises itself as being able to recreate any fantasy environment it is not a good idea at all.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

Tolkienesque default flavour. It's old, it's tired, I hate it. My solution is to play Eberron and design very unTolkien settings of my own, of course, but really I would love it if the core rules for Fourth Edition were a little more flavour-agnostic. Give multiple options for how the races are.

 

[Seeten]

5' tall elves. Its the worst part of D&D.