What don't you like about D&D?

[evildmguy]

-The fact I can't stay away from threads where people talk about rules variants and preferences that aren't like mine. Do whatever you want, just *shudder* keep it away from me.

And this may be the crux of it.

The issue is also about the people playing DND and what they do with the rules. I want a rules system to assist me in telling a story. I don't think DND does that, for the reasons listed here. However, lots of people can use it for that purpose and have lots of fun with it. Great! It doesn't work for me.

And I find now that while ten years ago, I could game with anyone, now I want a group of like minded gamers. This allows me to focus on what I find fun in the game. When I had a hodge-podge of players, that was much more difficult to do. One rules lawyer could ruin it for the rest of the group.

Have a good one! Take care!

edg

 

[howandwhy99]

For me it's the DM workload. I like a great deal about D&D and even alot about 3rd edition, but its' presumed workload for DMs is just too much. At low levels it has been okay, but at higher ones I'm having trouble determining how a DM can prepare without knowing every foe the characters will combat beforehand. I think this is why the railroading threads are like they are; the preparation time required is simply too much for anything nonlinear. I'll be using the tricks mentioned on this board and in Dungeoncraft for making simple statblock. That is something that should be mentioned in the core books though.

(I have yet to see a player other than myself play a high level wizard for the above reason alone and that's just one character.)

 

[KenSeg]

<However, even the math into the low-teens tends to bog down a bit for me. I'm coming to a greater and greater conclusion that the D&D I prefer lies below 10th level.>

I agree Henry and we have generally stopped most of our campaigns by the time we are 11th or 12th level at most, even 8th or 9th.

As far as a skill-based game, what are some of the best ones to use instead of D&D?

-KenSeg
gaming since 1978

 

[Desdichado]

And hey! You started this thread! Why are you attacking me? I am agreeing with you!

Dude, not attacking!

I see that sentiment expressed a fair amount, though, and I honestly don't get it. If the catch-22 exists in modern, it exists in a fantasy setting and is just as troublesome.

I'd argue that the catch-22 doesn't actually exist--the way hit points works pretty nicely mirrors the way action movies work. Heroes don't limp around and act all incapacitated just because they've taken a beatdown. In fact, if action movies are any guide, they get more effective the more damage they take.

And even main characters can go down with a single hit on occasion. In the world of action movies/novels/TV shows, that happens at dramatically appropriate moments while in d20 Modern it happens at random moments, but the fact remains that the system does fairly well model what's seen on screen. It doesn't very well model Real Life^TM but it's never claimed to be good at that.

It seems, then, that what you're really saying is that for modern you want "realistic" while for fantasy you want "heroic." Which is perfectly OK, but is that really *always* true? I like a gritty, realistic fantasy quite frequently, and I like heroic over-the-top modern too.

 

[RFisher]

The things that annoy me the most are related to my favorite class: Fighter.

I'm annoyed by the fighter's unimpressive class-skill list. I want to customize my fighters more through skills than feats.

My current fix for this is to convince the DM to let me multiclass between aristocrat & fighter. The NPC class has a better list of class skills. You don't sacrifice fighter BAB. You do sacrifice on fighter feats. It's also nice that 1st level aristocrats get great starting cash.

I'm annoyed that everytime I delve into the PHB's feat trees I always end up with a slight variation on one of about five types of fighter.

To counteract this, I should just make up five or so pre-figured feat lists with ability score prerequisites & just pick one rather than trying to do it from scratch each time.

Then there are the little annoyances like: A falchion has never (or close enough to never for my purposes) been a two-handed scimitar except in D&D. The buckler should be the one type of shield you can't use & hold anything else in the same hand. They don't really affect the game; they just get under my skin.

 

[Gothmog]

For me it's the DM workload. I like a great deal about D&D and even alot about 3rd edition, but its' presumed workload for DMs is just too much. At low levels it has been okay, but at higher ones I'm having trouble determining how a DM can prepare without knowing every foe the characters will combat beforehand. I think this is why the railroading threads are like they are; the preparation time required is simply too much for anything nonlinear. I'll be using the tricks mentioned on this board and in Dungeoncraft for making simple statblock. That is something that should be mentioned in the core books though.

(I have yet to see a player other than myself play a high level wizard for the above reason alone and that's just one character.)

Yep, among my many gripes with D&D, thats the #1 gripe- its so work intensive now you might as well run HERO or something equally arcane. Also 3E has so much rules bloat now if you use more than just 3 or 4 books, its worse than 2E ever was due to the focus on crunch and balance now.

D&D also does a very poor job of allowing for any campaign style or genre other than D&D. Heroic fantasy- D&D can do it somewhat, but Savage Worlds can do it so much better in my experience. Gritty and grim- D&D can do it very poorly, but WHFRP2 is light years ahead in this department. D&D is the 800 lb gorilla because it is a compromise system- can do do lots of things poorly to moderately, but nothing well other than the D&D genre. If you like the D&D genre, then its perfect for you- but if you enjoy a different genre, you're much better off trying a different system rather than pound the square D&D peg into the round grim & gritty hole, and dropping the monstrosity D&D has become.

J-Dawg's other comments I agree with, but they are minor compared to the two points I made above. Of the things J-Dawg lists, levels bother me the least because character advancement is pretty abstract in any system, and levels are the simplest, and for most players, most rewarding option.

 

[Desdichado]

The things that annoy me the most are related to my favorite class: Fighter.

I'm annoyed by the fighter's unimpressive class-skill list. I want to customize my fighters more through skills than feats.

My current fix for this is to convince the DM to let me multiclass between aristocrat & fighter. The NPC class has a better list of class skills. You don't sacrifice fighter BAB. You do sacrifice on fighter feats. It's also nice that 1st level aristocrats get great starting cash.

We just do ad hoc swapping of class skills. To be honest with you, I doubt that which skills are class skills have little to nothing to do with game balance and everything to do with flavor, so I have no problem (as a GM) switching them around to suit the players' tastes. I think the feat to have the ability to do that is completely useless.

 

[Desdichado]

Yep, among my many gripes with D&D, thats the #1 gripe- its so work intensive now you might as well run HERO or something equally arcane. Also 3E has so much rules bloat now if you use more than just 3 or 4 books, its worse than 2E ever was due to the focus on crunch and balance now.

I don't find it to be. There's a lot of rules, but the application of them is hardly necessary. At least half the time I run an encounter, I do it with on the fly NPCs where I just make up on the spot hit points, AC, to hit and damage numbers, and add a few abilities or feats as required. I know at least one DM who claims that running high level spellcasters on the fly without statting them out is just as easy, although I haven't really done that much. All you need are the same numbers I listed above, and know how high you can't go over in terms of spell level and you're good to go. Assume that any buff spells are already incorporated in the the numbers listed for further ease of use.

Personally, I'd at least make a list of spells that I'd probably use ahead of time and have them handy, but he doesn't even do that.

D&D also does a very poor job of allowing for any campaign style or genre other than D&D. Heroic fantasy- D&D can do it somewhat, but Savage Worlds can do it so much better in my experience. Gritty and grim- D&D can do it very poorly, but WHFRP2 is light years ahead in this department. D&D is the 800 lb gorilla because it is a compromise system- can do do lots of things poorly to moderately, but nothing well other than the D&D genre. If you like the D&D genre, then its perfect for you- but if you enjoy a different genre, you're much better off trying a different system rather than pound the square D&D peg into the round grim & gritty hole, and dropping the monstrosity D&D has become.

That does annoy me, but I don't think it's as difficult to "pound the square peg into the round hole" as you're making out. I can usually pull it off with one or two simple houserules in place.

What's harder is convincing your players that they need to get out of the D&D mindset in games like that.

 

[RFisher]

We just do ad hoc swapping of class skills. To be honest with you, I doubt that which skills are class skills have little to nothing to do with game balance and everything to do with flavor, so I have no problem (as a GM) switching them around to suit the players' tastes. I think the feat to have the ability to do that is completely useless.

I always suspected it has something to do with balance. I'm pretty sure there are some skills that would be class skills for 90+% of PCs if everyone got to choose their class skills.

But if it's worked for your group, then I just may try to convince the DM to allow it next time I get to play.

 

[Gothmog]

I don't find it to be. There's a lot of rules, but the application of them is hardly necessary. At least half the time I run an encounter, I do it with on the fly NPCs where I just make up on the spot hit points, AC, to hit and damage numbers, and add a few abilities or feats as required. I know at least one DM who claims that running high level spellcasters on the fly without statting them out is just as easy, although I haven't really done that much. All you need are the same numbers I listed above, and know how high you can't go over in terms of spell level and you're good to go. Assume that any buff spells are already incorporated in the the numbers listed for further ease of use.

Personally, I'd at least make a list of spells that I'd probably use ahead of time and have them handy, but he doesn't even do that.

For some people, they might not mind it so much. For me, its a major annoyance and hassle. I don't have 3-5 hours to stat up opponents for a 6 hour session, AND another few hours for plot hooks/development, AND another 3-5 hours for painting minis. True, the core mechanic of d20 + modifiers to beat a DC isn't complex, but feat interactions, oodles of spell and buff effects, skill synergies, class/PrC complementation, monster advancement, etc- and the thing gets out of hand quickly even with just the core books plus one or two other sources.

On the other hand, I can completely stat out a Savage Worlds adventure in under 1 hour, with minimal hassle since the rules are not spread out everywhere, and I don't have to check feat trees, skill points per level, etc. When D20 and D&D came out, I loved the options and comprehensiveness of the system, and I played it like crazy. But as time went on, either my needs or wants changed, and/or my willingness to go through lots of computations decreased. D20 is a decent RP system, and it has some nice innovations (most are taken from Rolemaster though)- but its not the be-all and end-all of systems- not even close. For people who like that many options and computations, more power to you, but for me the options actually got in the way of the game, and made it much LESS fun.

That does annoy me, but I don't think it's as difficult to "pound the square peg into the round hole" as you're making out. I can usually pull it off with one or two simple houserules in place.

What's harder is convincing your players that they need to get out of the D&D mindset in games like that.

Well trying to tweak D&D to do grim & gritty low magic was a nightmare. We made up several house rules, including: lowered MDT saves, scaling AC with level, altering feat acquisition rate, a non-vancian magic system with less omnipresent spells, alt versions of classes, etc. Those mods worked ok, but by the time you do that, make your character, and check your house rule mods and modify the character based on them, you've easily spent another 2+ hours on game prep- which is the problem I had above.

Our solution was to play WHFRP2 for our g&g low magic games, which it does admirably and with very little complexity, and SW for our heroic and modern games, which it does much better than D&D. We didn't have to house rule the crap out of the systems, since they were built for their specific uses. Its gotten to the point I WON'T run D&D/D20 games anymore, and I'll only play short campaigns in D&D/D20 if its under 10th level. For me, and my group, D&D/D20 just isn't worth the hassle.