What game mechanics when introduced were absolutely hated?

There have been ideas that with regard to gameplay, were absolutely hated when introduced, but eventually were accepted and in some cases, often replaced ideas that had issues.

What were they?
 
L

lowkey13

Guest
The order of abilities (from SIWDCC fo SDCIWC).

Saving throws from independent to ability-based.

Removal of racial maximums for classes.

ASIs.

Vancian spell casting with non- and neo-Vancian.
 

Stormonu

Hero
1E
Non-weapon proficiencies
THAC0
bards
psionics

2E
Kits (which became the underpinnings for prestige classes, and now paths)
Story XP
the Blood War (and the creatures associated with them...)

3E
d20 thief skills instead of %
Hit dice past 10th level
AC goes up
removing racial level caps
metamagic feats (which help to thin the spell list and lead to capping spells at a fixed ability and not improving just because you got more levels in 4th & 5th)

4E
at-will Cantrips
Fighter "powers"/manuevers
tiers of play
non-Lawful good Paladins and the divorce of other classes from alignment
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Most of the rules changes found in White Wolf's Mage: The Awakening.

Like... a morality track in a game about wizards, that knocked you hard for using magic in a fight. And that could, if read strictly, have you turn into a pyromaniac for shoplifting a Chapstick. :7

I should note that these rules changes weren't really accepted. The game kinda bombed.
 

aramis erak

Adventurer
Not many mechanics hit my hate threshold...

but the sexually explicit elements of FATAL hit that threshold.

I think the "mechanic" that bugs me most is the non-mechanic - Palladium Books attitude that social skills have no place and there should be no social mechanics at all is probably the biggest that doesn't involve sexual issues...

Likewise, I'm not a fan of attributes with no mechanical impact. (See also early Palladium, where most atts under 16 only matter for OCC selection.)
 

Sacrosanct

Legend
THAC0 was not hated when it came out in 2e. Most of us were already using something very similar by then because it was easier than attack matrix tables, and freed up space on the character sheets to just have a single number. It first showed up in the 1e DMG at the back, so it was a natural progression. And it was an improvement over attack matrix by all but the most purist of grognards. Most of the hate towards 2e when it came out was the removal of assassins, half orcs, monks, and demons/devils. I don’t recall anyone getting upset about going to THAC0 from attack matrix.

No, it wasn’t hated until after 3e came out with ascending AC and fans of 3e looked back and liked ascending better now that they played D&D without THAC0 and got that experience.
 
No, it wasn’t hated until after 3e came out with ascending AC and fans of 3e looked back and liked ascending better now that they played D&D without THAC0 and got that experience
I think it was more of a matter that when first learning 1E or 2E it was that you had to roll different dice for certain actions and then sometimes you had to roll high or had to roll low. 3E and d20 just made more sense by making most actions resolved by a d20 which was usually the higher roll succeeded. I know Im stating the obvious here but having myself made the transition from 1E/2E to 3E it made alot of sense back then. Its pretty crazy how fast 20 years has gone by.
 
L

lowkey13

Guest
So, just to be clear, the OP ( @Shades of Eternity ) asked the following:

There have been ideas that with regard to gameplay, were absolutely hated when introduced, but eventually were accepted ... What were they?

My understanding of this is that he is looking for examples of ideas that:

1. Were hated when introduced.
2. Eventually became accepted.

So, this would not include:

A. Ideas that were hated, and not accepted. E.g., Comeliness.

B. Ideas that were not hated, and were accepted. E.g., Increased alignment options (people might not like alignment in general, but did not hate having 9 options instead of 3).

C. Ideas that were not introduced, but were around since the beginning (or close enough). E.g., anything in OD&D, like the assassin class, or psionics.


While I am using D&D examples, there is nothing in the OP that restricts this to D&D.
 

JeffB

Legend
Vancian casting was a definitely a sticking point from the beginning. The zine world/amateur press and third party products were full of hate and alternate systems. I still don't like it.

A lot of people also had (and still have) issues with HP and Armor Class.

Whole systems and companies were born out of not accepting D&D isms. Tunnels & Trolls and Runequest were direct responses to "what doesn't make sense" with D&D.

Despite all that- the majority of players have accepted these things as integral to D&D and part of the experience of the game.
 

Celebrim

Legend
1e & 2e

I can't remember a lot of things that were added being hated when they were added, but I do remember almost universal rejection of 2e's attempts at addition through subtraction. In particular, the initial rules that said Paladin's were just Fighters prompted a lot of hate, and were a big part of why I think the group I was with rejected the game at the time.

I think in general I can describe the groups I was with at the time as loving virtually every new option, even if in retrospect we should have realized that they were bad for the game. The things that 2e added to the game, like expanded NWP, a core class bard, dragons with regular stat blocks, and expanded spell lists were embraced. It's only where it was perceived as taking away things that it wasn't.

3e

I didn't hang out with a lot of people that hated 3e, and consequently I was probably it's biggest critic. And the bulk of my hatred was focused on Prestige Classes. There were individual options I didn't like, but it was only Prestige Classes that I came to hate as a concept.

Level of the spell is added to the DC to resist it. In a universe where the power of the casters already grew exponentially, this to me was the key tipping point that caused their power level to be out of control. There were other problems, but none so critical as the fact that unlike prior editions, as the caster leveled up, they could expect targets of their spells to be less likely rather than more likely to resist the effects.

Pathfinder, 4e, 5e

At will cantrips. I hate them. And while the players like having 'more', I think most of them also agree that they really put constraints on the game (or what can be a cantrip) that aren't fun.
 
L

lowkey13

Guest
Pathfinder, 4e, 5e

At will cantrips. I hate them. And while the players like having 'more', I think most of them also agree that they really put constraints on the game (or what can be a cantrip) that aren't fun.
Preach.

Then again, I think you could reuse this and say the original official introduction of cantrips (UA, 1e) was hated, and then got folded into the game.
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
I consider things introduced to include those introduced in the very beginning of the formalized roleplaying as a hobby not necessarily something introduced later.
 

atanakar

Hero
I can think of two things that were hated at first but became widely accepted:

• Hated At-will Cantrips in 4e are now accepted by the vast majority of players of 5e.

• A single XP table for all classes received a lot of hate when 3e came out but has now been accepted for 3 editions.
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
Vancian casting was a definitely a sticking point from the beginning. The zine world/amateur press and third party products were full of hate and alternate systems. I still don't like it.

A lot of people also had (and still have) issues with HP and Armor Class.

Whole systems and companies were born out of not accepting D&D isms. Tunnels & Trolls and Runequest were direct responses to "what doesn't make sense" with D&D.

Despite all that- the majority of players have accepted these things as integral to D&D and part of the experience of the game.
yup
 

Celebrim

Legend
Then again, I think you could reuse this and say the original official introduction of cantrips (UA, 1e) was hated, and then got folded into the game.
It wasn't. What was hated immediately was that you had to trade a 1st level spell slot for 4 absolutely useless spells - remember adding things is good, taking away things is bad. So almost immediately, we started experimenting with different ways to get cantrips into the game without taking things away.

In 1987, I even introduced a house rule to my table that you could use at-will unlimited cantrips, figuring that since the spells had no real umph to them other than color, that they'd just be used as RPing flourishes. That rule lasted all of one session. Instead of being used as occasional flourishes to make the M-U seem magical, they were used all the time in the unrestrained manner of junior high kids with a bag of novelty gags.

We eventually settled on allowing a number of cantrips per day equal to your 1st level spell slots - which is very close to what 3e settled on except that 3e went a bit further and said that they could have a wee bit of 'umph'.
 

Advertisement

Top