Which element could D&D stand to lose more?

[ProfessorCirno]

Neither.

Elves are more or less entrenched in D&D.

Psioonic haters or people who think they're sci-fi are either delusional or ignorant of their own game. Admin here. Make your point without insults, please; as it turns out, it's okay for people to disagree with you. Who knew? - PCat It's not cool to use your mind and will to change the world, but using psuedo-science to cast Telepathy or ESP or Clone or Telekinesis? That's apparently ok!

Also it's wrong to enter a badly light tavern and jostle three soulknives and a psion, but it's totally cool to jostle the fifty different types of wizards.

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

I think hatred of alignment goes back to the old days where powerful classes had alignment restrictions.

At least in my case I haven't lived long enough/played enough D&D for this to be the case. I hate alignment for reasons of just not agreeing with its moral system.

 

[Hussar]

Neither.

Elves are more or less entrenched in D&D.

Psioonic haters or people who think they're sci-fi are either delusional or ignorant of their own game. It's not cool to use your mind and will to change the world, but using psuedo-science to cast Telepathy or ESP or Clone or Telekinesis? That's apparently ok!

Also it's wrong to enter a badly light tavern and jostle three soulknives and a psion, but it's totally cool to jostle the fifty different types of wizards.

Actually, what D&D could stand to lose most is those who believe that their positions are completely unassailable and anyone who disagrees with them is either "delusional or ignorant".

 

[Mark CMG]

Actually, what D&D could stand to lose most is those who believe that their positions are completely unassailable and anyone who disagrees with them is either "delusional or ignorant".

We'll miss you.

This is an example of the sort of smug, condescending post I really, really hate. Don't do this, folks. - PCat

 

[Hussar]

We'll miss you.

Nice.

Prof C calls anyone who disagrees with him "delusional and ignorant" but, you take the time out of your day to snipe at me.

This, this right here, is what's wrong with our hobby. Instead of landing like a ton of bricks every time someone decides to piddle all over their fellow gamer, we've decided that it's better to be in "camps" and anything that someone in "my camp" does is acceptable.

It's the same thing as three hundred people taking the time to go on CNN and tell all and sundry how 4e sucks, instead of celebrating the fact that D&D (in any form) is being carried on a major news outlet in a positive way.

People keep telling me how WOTC so badly bungled the release of 4e and turned away so many gamers. I'll tell you right now, it's the reaction of Mark C and those like him who have completely and 100% turned me off anything D20 anymore.

So, yeah, keep on attacking anyone who disagrees with you. Keep on sniping and piddling on anyone who doesn't march lockstep with everything YOU happen to like.

Welcome to my ignore list buddy. Piratecat here. Ignore someone, or don't, but please don't discuss it in-thread. That's rude. In addition, it is always better to report problematic posts and let us deal with them than it is to lose your temper.

 

[Desdichado]

I've argued this in the past. I think hatred of alignment goes back to the old days where powerful classes had alignment restrictions. Back then, the game was generally balanced by rarity, but when someone got lucky enough to roll up a paladin or ranger or something, the character would generally be the most powerfulin the group. Some DMs who either couldn't handle the PC or were just plain jerkasses would set up situations where the character would violate the required alignment and thus lose the class. This would particularly be the case for paladins, where the DM essentially forced the PC to perform an evil act, with evil being an arbitray call by the DM in the first place.

That'd be wrong in my case. I played back then, but I always avoided the alignment restricted classes.

I just don't like alignment all on it's own regardless of any jerky DM behavior.

 

[Piratecat]

Okay, guys, time to stop losing your temper. One person's sacred cow is another person's rubbish. There's no need to take it personally when this is the case; conversely, post while keeping that in mind so that you're not unnecessarily offensive.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Alignment seems quite appropriate to me for a Tolkienesque or Moorcockian game where dualistic struggle on a grand scale is an important part of the milieu. Though a three (or two) alignment system would seem to work a lot better for that than nine.

I can't really see the point in alignment as a descriptor of personality, though I can see there might be benefits to describing personality in a systematic form, as Pendragon does in great detail. I think what you want to measure could vary a lot from campaign to campaign tho. Pendragon is a very focused game, in the original version PCs could only be knights.

 

[billd91]

It's the same thing as three hundred people taking the time to go on CNN and tell all and sundry how 4e sucks, instead of celebrating the fact that D&D (in any form) is being carried on a major news outlet in a positive way.

Why should gamers celebrate D&D in a particular form being carried on a major news outlet, particularly if said gamers honestly think it sucks and is dragging down the brand? Where does this idea that we shouldn't criticize the game come from?

 

[Ulrick]

I cut both elves and psionics from my homebrew campaign waaaay back in AD&D 2nd Edition and haven't looked back. Back then, of course, psionics were a clunky system. And I cut elves because I got tired of my friend's penchant for constantly talking about how cool elves are. But to be fair, I cut halflings, gnomes, half-elves (obviously), half-orcs (no orcs either), but kept dwarves. But dwarves are evil and unplayable as a character race.

My main issue with psionics is that they've always been a "tacked" on system--even in 3.0/3.5e (never bothered with 4e).