Least favorite: Linear fighter/quadratic wizard and everything that derives from it. Completely contrary to the bulk of the Appendix N sources. Also has a distasteful "revenge of the nerds" flavor.

I think D&D is most important in initiating the whole hobby, but I don't like the rules at all. It's quicker to list what I do like; the 3D6 stats were a good idea that many others have copied.

Quote from: Trond on October 13, 2022, 10:59:37 AM
I think D&D is most important in initiating the whole hobby, but I don't like the rules at all. It's quicker to list what I do like; the 3D6 stats were a good idea that many others have copied.

That's pretty much my take on it.  Palladium is messed up because only high stats of 16+ matter.  Below that and they all just sort of don't do anything, ever. 

Dungeons &Delvers Dice Pool Edition even gets rid of that, however.  I'm actually Ok with that change.  Instead the game just gives you three sets of stats at character creation, and you pick the one you like.  It makes sense in that game.  It uses dice for stats, not numbers.  D4 through D12.   With only five integers between min and max a random roll would be too much.  You just get your prime stat as a D8 and two D6's, and one D4 (delvers only uses five stats). 

I actually use a 3d6/3-18 ability score range as a base for the sake of tradition and to avoid confusing casuals, but D&D score range fall into the category of pointless things I hate about the game, even going back to the old days, when I played mostly 2e, and Basic once upon a time.

The only thing that matters about Ability Scores is their modifier. The only real exception to this is weight carry, but every other score gives you nothing except for the modifier. And frankly I don't see the point of keeping an ability score range with a bunch of empty values that give you nothing just for the sake of weight carry granularity, like keeping track of encumbrance isn't already boring enough. Ability "Score" should just be the modifier.

The only other reason you might want to keep ability scores is roll under mechanics, like in AD&D. But that has its own set of problems. Roll Under Score means that if you get lucky and roll an 18 during creation, you have 90% chance to succeed at anything based on that score right out of the gate. Meanwhile a character that rolled 10 is stuck at 50% for life. And since Proficiencies were tied to ability scores (at least in 2e) this meant that unless you rolled high in a parent score you would never be good in that skill, cuz all you get is a measley +1 per extra proficiency slot you waste on the same proficiency.

The only thing that 3d6 is arguably good for is randomly determining your ability modifiers, if you're into that. But I would just give everyone X amount of points (maybe 8 or so) to distribute as actual modifiers, with an extra +1 per -1 you take, and cap the modifiers at -4 to +4, or something like that.

Beyond that there's a ton of other things I hate about old D&D rules, the most commonly mentioned being Vancian magic. But I solved that by ignoring spell memorization in my games and treating spell slots as simply the number of spells of each level you could cast per day. I hate almost everything everyone else has already mentioned, specially arbitrary Save categories based on specific special attacks (Breath, poison, etc.) rather than broad categories like those covered by Fortitude, Reflexes and Will, or maybe just basing them on Scores directly.

I don't hate Zero to Hero, though, but I do have some issues with it's implementation, specially HP progression, which starts out way too low, then effectively doubles pet level, turning it into a huge bloat by level 10+. But I think that the idea of heroic progression, and even of progressing in "levels" in general, is one of the most enduring features that have made D&D so successful and the idea of level-based progression perhaps the most imitated feature in other RPGs, particularly video games.

More granular, skill-based progression is something that I think attracts more a particular type of player that tends to be more invested on character details and mechanical components in RPGs. But casual players and people who're not invested in fine-tuning details tend to be more attracted to level-based progression, which is typically simpler and invokes a sense of "growing" more effectively.

Took me a while to decide what I really dislike.

1. Thieves - there is a lot wrong here, some of which AD&D fixed relative to Greyhawk and B/X, but the skills are poorly defined and useless at lower levels leading to poor niche protection/archetype representation, and the hit points are lousy (D6 in AD&D helped a bit) making them too fragile in combat. Having The Complete Warlock just to sub out its much better thief class is worthwhile.

2. Hit Point ranges - I don't mind zero to hero, but in HP even for a fighter it goes from "killed with one swipe by a black cat" to "more hit points than a dragon". Even a magic-user, with lucky rolls, can out do weaker dragons.

3. Spell's memorize range - Again similar to HPs. I like Vancian magic, but the spread of "just one spell" at first level to the huge range at higher levels.

I guess on 2 & 3 I'm disliking zero to hero and wanting closer to trained private to hero. Also, classic D&D is less zero to hero and more zero to demigod.

Quote from: FingerRod on October 13, 2022, 07:34:27 AM
Least favorite? Thief abilities—specifically the low percentages. Bad design. Makes me wonder how many yes men stared at their feet and said nothing after Gary pitched it.

I don't think Gary had to pitch ideas. He just wrote whatever he felt like.

But if you look at the write up of the pre-Gygax thief it works a bit different. In the original rules, a first level thief could have a 50% chance to pick locks at first level and a 90% chance at 5th level. The big difference, was that you had to pick skills from a list so a first level thief might not even be able to pick a lock at all.

I guess Gygax took away the choice and just game every thief a small increase in every possible skill as they leveled up. But in the original rules, higher level thieves could chose from a wide variety of special skills such as evaluate treasure, escape from being tied up, concoct antidotes to poisons, mimic other people's voices, break codes, track enemies etc.

Quote from: VisionStorm on October 13, 2022, 11:59:46 AMThe only thing that matters about Ability Scores is their modifier. The only real exception to this is weight carry, but every other score gives you nothing except for the modifier. And frankly I don't see the point of keeping an ability score range with a bunch of empty values that give you nothing just for the sake of weight carry granularity, like keeping track of encumbrance isn't already boring enough. Ability "Score" should just be the modifier.

Using only the modifiers is actually much more useful mechanically. As a normal value is 0, you can write a character out by simply listing only the exceptional abilities. For example, your orc boss might be written as:

Orc Boss, 3 hd, hp 12, Str+2, Cha+1

This means you can easily give ability scores to monsters or NPCs and these characters can quickly become playable characters if you need to replace losses.

QuoteI don't hate Zero to Hero, though, but I do have some issues with it's implementation, specially HP progression, which starts out way too low, then effectively doubles pet level, turning it into a huge bloat by level 10+.

I've found that one of the biggest contributor to hit point bloat at high levels is bonus hit points at first level. I solved this problem by having characters reroll their hit points every level but only using the new number if it is higher than the current number. This way, you can hand out bonus hit point to low level characters, such as letting them start with hit points equal to CON, but they won't have any more hit points than normal at 10th level.

Constitution bonuses are also a big factor but that can be solved by reigning in ultra-high ability scores during character creation.

Back when I used to play AD&D, the first things we ditched were 60-second combat rounds, and rolling initiative for each side and having the entire side act as one.

We adopted the 10-second combat round from B/X, and individual initiative. 

We also ignored: weapon vs. armor type modifiers from the Player's Handbook.

I feel like this is an endless topic. Here's what I'll say:

D&D isn't a very good tactical wargame most of the time, aside from 4E. So if your goal is cool mechanical combat, then you're better off sticking with 4E.

It's also only a passable system for roleplaying.

Improvements in either of these areas are good.

I'm perfectly happy with 1E. I don't know that I could name a least favorite part. Unless you want to go with something silly and trivial. Like merfolk hit probability with grappling hooks against ships does not vary with the size and speed of the vessel, and nor does the number required to sink the ship vary.

But what I can do is go through some of the things I LOVE about 1E that were changed.

1) Illusions can hurt you. The common story you hear about this is, there was no real vision on how illusions worked initially. But then the best minds in all of D&Ddom converged to hash out the logical underpinnings, you can see it happening in dragon magazine, and while still during the 1E era, illusions had evolved into the form that was later used in 2E.

One small problem with that theory. Gary later wrote the Lejendary Adventure RPG, and in that game went back to illusions that could actually hurt you. Now first be aware that some people had made arguments that 1E phantasmal force technically never said it can physically hurt you. It could do damage to your hit points, but Gary had also allowed for the possibility that hit points need not be physical. And so it was easy to reconcile that Phantasmal Force explicitly could cause hit point loss while still arguing it wasn't physical damage. But in Lejendary Adventure, the wording Gary used was less malleable. It specified that wounds will open up spontaneously "as stigmata do."

It was intentional. It was not illogical. And it was way more badass.


2) Lower AC is better. The hit tables for 0th level humans requires a 20 to hit AC 1. Which is a 1 in 20 chance. That means a 19 to hit AC 2, or a 2 in 20 chance, 18 to hit AC 3, or a 3 in 20 chance. You see the pattern? This makes large scale combat a LOT easier to manage in 1E. For every 20 0th level fighting men in mass melee, the defender's AC is the number of hits they score. Or if a PC in a fit of heroism has to run through a hail of crossbow fire for some reason, whatever that character's AC is, that's how many hits you take per 20 crossbowmen per round. AC 3, 1 round of fire, 20 men? 3d4 damage.

Now technically you could go back into BECMI D&D or 2E AD&D and recalibrate the hit tables for ordinary fighting men to produce this result. You could tweak it. But it absolutely requires that low AC be better. Otherwise the AC could never be the stand-in for how many hits per 20 attacks lands.


3) The 1st Edition Monk. From a rules perspective, this class seemed to almost be piloting different takes and rules tweaks that tinkering DMs are likely to have. Should attacks have effects other than just depleting hit points? Monk attacks can stun. How about critical hits? Monks have an autokill percentage with their open hand attacks. How fine-grain should we get with number of attacks. I mean we have 3 attacks every 2 rounds. How about 5 every 4? Should characters deal more damage as they become more experienced? Let's take that idea for a spin on the monk class. Should characters be better at defending themselves as they level? Hey, monks get better AC as they level.

From a "flavor text" perspective, it's commonly panned as not being appropriate to western style campaigns. Well, first, let's point out that the origin of paladins and assassins are also confined to a specific cultural space. But the classes are written in such a way there's no reason they couldn't be used in any culture. And I'll go to bat for the appropriateness of the monks in the western campaign. William of Gellone. He was a monk. Born in 755 in northern France. Venerated in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches. Canonized by a pope. In the legends, he was able to smite enemies with his strong hands.

In defense of Vancian magic, I can understand why people don't like it, but froma metagaming standpoint, who wants to wait for the party's one magic user to flip through the spells section of the phb for ten minutes because he didn't think of what spell to use before hand.

Quote from: Tasty_Wind on October 13, 2022, 01:10:14 PM
In defense of Vancian magic, I can understand why people don't like it, but froma metagaming standpoint, who wants to wait for the party's one magic user to flip through the spells section of the phb for ten minutes because he didn't think of what spell to use before hand.

FWIW in my favorite versions the MU usually has FEWER spells to choose from (currently using SP with one new spell per MU level).

Also, you don't have to wait for the MU to pick new spells every day while all the other PCs gain nothing except maybe recovering 1d3 HP.

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2022/10/spell-points-for-bx-and-osr-systems.html

Quote from: weirdguy564 on October 13, 2022, 11:33:28 AM

Quote from: Trond on October 13, 2022, 10:59:37 AM
I think D&D is most important in initiating the whole hobby, but I don't like the rules at all. It's quicker to list what I do like; the 3D6 stats were a good idea that many others have copied.

That's pretty much my take on it.  Palladium is messed up because only high stats of 16+ matter.  Below that and they all just sort of don't do anything, ever. 

Dungeons &Delvers Dice Pool Edition even gets rid of that, however.  I'm actually Ok with that change.  Instead the game just gives you three sets of stats at character creation, and you pick the one you like.  It makes sense in that game.  It uses dice for stats, not numbers.  D4 through D12.   With only five integers between min and max a random roll would be too much.  You just get your prime stat as a D8 and two D6's, and one D4 (delvers only uses five stats).

Many games have a sort of passive usage of stats, which I always found odd since I started with Drakar & Demoner which was based on Runequest rules. So I was used to stat rolls. I always wanted some sort of stat roll in Rolemaster too, so I tried houseruling  that

Quote from: Eric Diaz on October 12, 2022, 07:41:14 PM
I've been thinking a lot about this lately. Might (re)write my own clone.

I do not do things quite like your lists but you may find a lot to like with my Majestic Fantasy RPG.

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/337515/The-Majestic-Fantasy-RPG-Basic-Rules

For a slightly older but free version with the players stuff and combat in it
https://www.batintheattic.com/downloads/MW%20Majestic%20Fantasy%20Basic%20RPG%20Rev%2010.pdf

Quote from: weirdguy564 on October 12, 2022, 06:43:15 PM
I was thinking of this as I read thru many of my gajillion OSR rulebooks.  I've bragged that I've never played official D&D before.   Some of the rules I like, mainly how the six ability scores work, but that's about it.

See if this helps.

When to make a Ruling
https://www.batintheattic.com/downloads/When%20to%20make%20a%20Ruling.pdf


I recognize that no amount of explanation will make folks like how D&D works. But the above works as a practical explanation of how to make the stuff work 'as is' without house ruling it to hell and back.