Quote from: weirdguy564 on November 01, 2022, 05:37:09 PM
I think a lot of players find an issue with games that have loopholes that they've discovered in the rules, but the GM won't allow the game to go off the rails like that. 

Playing rules as written presumes the rules are perfect.  There is no such game. 

A lot of my games I play now are rules light so my GM ability has fewer restrictions.

The system I wrote has a specific written rule that declares "because there is no way to account for all the ways these rules could interact in unintended ways, if a result seems broken or nonsensical to the GM, then the GM should determine the outcome based on what they believe to be the intention of the rule."

In essence, playing "rules as intended" (as determined by the GM) is actually the "rules as written" for the system.

Quote from: Chris24601 on November 01, 2022, 09:10:41 PM

Quote from: weirdguy564 on November 01, 2022, 05:37:09 PM
I think a lot of players find an issue with games that have loopholes that they've discovered in the rules, but the GM won't allow the game to go off the rails like that. 

Playing rules as written presumes the rules are perfect.  There is no such game. 

A lot of my games I play now are rules light so my GM ability has fewer restrictions.

The system I wrote has a specific written rule that declares "because there is no way to account for all the ways these rules could interact in unintended ways, if a result seems broken or nonsensical to the GM, then the GM should determine the outcome based on what they believe to be the intention of the rule."

In essence, playing "rules as intended" (as determined by the GM) is actually the "rules as written" for the system.

This has always been part of the goal with something like Rule 0.
The trick is that insofar as a game has rules, you want them well designed. A caveat like that shouldn't be a crutch for bad design (not saying it is, but it could be).

Quote from: Zelen on November 01, 2022, 09:17:44 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on November 01, 2022, 09:10:41 PM

Quote from: weirdguy564 on November 01, 2022, 05:37:09 PM
I think a lot of players find an issue with games that have loopholes that they've discovered in the rules, but the GM won't allow the game to go off the rails like that. 

Playing rules as written presumes the rules are perfect.  There is no such game. 

A lot of my games I play now are rules light so my GM ability has fewer restrictions.

The system I wrote has a specific written rule that declares "because there is no way to account for all the ways these rules could interact in unintended ways, if a result seems broken or nonsensical to the GM, then the GM should determine the outcome based on what they believe to be the intention of the rule."

In essence, playing "rules as intended" (as determined by the GM) is actually the "rules as written" for the system.

This has always been part of the goal with something like Rule 0.
The trick is that insofar as a game has rules, you want them well designed. A caveat like that shouldn't be a crutch for bad design (not saying it is, but it could be).

Oh, its not. I just know how many potential moving pieces there are between various character and monster abilities and that some situations could involve the interaction of three or four or even more elements that could, in theory, produce some broken result. I just wanted to cover my bases in case something in the interactions that never got caught because the people I had test the system just never tried a hypothetical combo of multiple elements and resulted in some sort of thing that would be a nightmare or gamebreaking if allowed to stand.

I've seen enough bad rules lawyers attempt the "rules as written" argument on a new DM who's not sure of themselves and their rulings yet. This is mainly just to undercut that whole line entirely because its damnably annoying.

So many little rules from OD&D that I need to home rule

-Not crazy about Vancian magic, never was. I prefer spell points for M.U.s
-Wizards only using swords , Pfffttt!
-Hit points being so rando - got my own system for that.

I use some other home rules as well.

I tend to avoid over ruled systems as they break immersion IMHO. I did the whole arc from OD&D through other games and have realized OD&D hits the sweet spot for me.

Quote from: hedgehobbit on October 13, 2022, 12:39:40 PM

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.

Where could one look at the pre-Gygax thief? And to what are you referring? The California Thief? Or something from Arneson's game?

Race as class just straight up irritates me. I'm with Eric Diaz on that one.

The problems with Vancian casting are that:

One, at low levels you are SOL after casting your one or two spells for the day. The magic-user's anemic combat skills and weapon proficiencies mean even tossing sling stones or darts is going to be dull.

Two, at mid to high levels the book keeping is agonizing for everyone involved.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on November 03, 2022, 11:49:32 AM
Race as class just straight up irritates me. I'm with Eric Diaz on that one.

It would have been nice if they had a series of classes for each race.

For example a Ranger is an Elf fighter, illusionist is an Elf Wizard, and Druid is an Elf cleric. Of course more customized for Elves than those examples but they illustrate the point. That way Elves would all feel different and the class lists would be easier to manage because if you didn't have an Elf you could just ignore those classes. Also it would mean that if you want to create a new class like Tiefling you'd have to come up with some classes to go with it.

Quote from: Ruprecht on November 03, 2022, 01:38:14 PM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on November 03, 2022, 11:49:32 AM
Race as class just straight up irritates me. I'm with Eric Diaz on that one.

It would have been nice if they had a series of classes for each race.

For example a Ranger is an Elf fighter, illusionist is an Elf Wizard, and Druid is an Elf cleric. Of course more customized for Elves than those examples but they illustrate the point. That way Elves would all feel different and the class lists would be easier to manage because if you didn't have an Elf you could just ignore those classes. Also it would mean that if you want to create a new class like Tiefling you'd have to come up with some classes to go with it.

"ACKS already does that."

Quote from: Ghostmaker on November 03, 2022, 11:49:32 AM
Race as class just straight up irritates me. I'm with Eric Diaz on that one.

The problems with Vancian casting are that:

One, at low levels you are SOL after casting your one or two spells for the day. The magic-user's anemic combat skills and weapon proficiencies mean even tossing sling stones or darts is going to be dull.

Two, at mid to high levels the book keeping is agonizing for everyone involved.

In fairness, the issue of running out spell slots at low levels isn't inherent to Vancian magic. It's more about implementation, since you could still have Vancian magic and give the level 1 Magic User 25 spells per day.  I do 100% agree with you that if you're going to give a wizard a small number of spells per day, they need to be a lot better at fighting.

I think D&D magic has a problem with its flavor not matching its implementation. In the fluff text D&D spells are complex formulae that require extensive preparation, complex gestures and components to perform. In practice, they're combat actions that have to be performed in three to six seconds, often while on the move or holding something in one hand. For my money, an MP system (or any system that allows more spells per day) is always going to fit battle magic better. The classic Vancian idea works better for a game where a single spell is more powerful, and magic is rarely used in the heat of battle. You could argue that's the intent in old D&D, but they fouled that by making magic the wizard's only viable combat option.

At low levels, the wizard in early D&D is not much of a tactical option, at least not with their memorized spells.  Wands and scrolls are supposed to open up that window.  Instead, the wizard is an operational asset for the party as a whole.  I get that some players don't enjoy playing an operational asset, but that's more about a mismatch in expectations than a problem with the design as it was conceived. 

Where it really went off the rails was the focus on smaller and smaller parties, dropping henchmen, etc.  With 6, 7, 8 players, several henchmen, multiple hirelings, the player of a wizard has a lot more to do.  Not coincidentally, there was also mapping going on, tracking equipment, etc.  We usually found that in operational play, there was more than enough activity to go around.  Typically, the wizard player would likely be the mapper (who is someone you don't want on the front line anyway) and run the toughest fighter henchmen or hireling. 

So yeah, take all that stuff out, and it is not surprising that having a few operational spells is boring.  Then consider the naive fix of tacking on more and more spells without adjusting how they work--also not surprising that it has its own problems.

Quote from: honeydipperdavid on October 13, 2022, 03:40:09 AM
My least favorite aspects of D&D5E currently are:

-Concentration.  Its too easy to remove a spell effect from play.  I've home ruled that any spell disrupted by concentration can only take place after the 2nd round the spell has been cast.  So at least the caster can have some effect in game.

-Counter spell.  Horribly implemented.  I use a DC15 + the spell level for an arcana check that the counter speller has to pass to counter spell the spell.  If they can't identify the spell and level, they can't counter.

-Dogpiling of skill roll buffs.  My God, WTF did WotC do to skill rolls?  Oh you need a guidance (1d4), here you go.  Oh you want a bardic inspiration (1d10) we'll throw that on too.  Oh fuck, you want bless (1d4), sure as fuck we'll give you that as well.  Oh, you got a druid circle of stars, he got Weal (1d6), we'll throw that too.  So, a player doing a medium task (d10) gets a bonus 2d8 + 1d10 + 1d6 average of +16 to their roles.  Thank you WotC for setting up this clusterfuck of bonuses, all pretty damn likely in a party with a party having a paladin, bard, druid.

-Paladin save aura.  Oh God, lets add that +5 to your saves as well.  It does have a 10' radius which does cluster the players, however that charisma bonus is going to give the players half damage more times than not for AE damage.  Honestly, I would have rather WotC put that on proficiency bonus use per long rest meaning you can use it for 1 minute per long rest per use of a proficiency point.  It will still be on, but not perma on.  Or if they changed it to damage reduction or bonus AC.  That +5 to saves most players push all points into charisma helps to trivialize spells with saving throws.  When I see a player doing that, I just look at the monsters and their spell line up is now on save half damage and move on for their damaging type spells and forget about their control spells.

Agree with pretty much all of these. 5e has way too many auto success mechanics, that only serve to remove portions of the game rather than make a character specialized in that. Overland travel and exploration? Any ranger or Druid and you can toss overland right out the window.

As for concentration their entire spell list has been sacrificed for the sake of "balance" concentration is such a cop out. Raise dead doesn't work on anything except humanoids and concentration is there purely as a meta mechanic to limit spellcasters. Also spell effects and times have been neutered to the point of being in combat spells only for most of them.

Biggest peeve though is everyone is a spellcaster. Everyone has magic. And I swear if I see one more drow/Dragonborn paladin warlock I'm gonna scream. I was that asshole dm who made warlock patrons and active part of the campaign

A number of players have commented that 5E's concentration rules can be very jarring for someone used to layering buffs or debuffs.

Unarmed combat in AD&D.  Can I get an AMEN.  Grappling and Pummeling is hot garbage.  I can't believe Gary thought that was useable.  Close tie: rules for determining who gets hit when firing missiles into melee combat.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on November 04, 2022, 06:59:08 PM
A number of players have commented that 5E's concentration rules can be very jarring for someone used to layering buffs or debuffs.

I can see that.  However, I found the stacking to be out of control, and concentration an elegant rule to limit it.  The problems with 5E concentration are more in the spells, I think, than the mechanic.

I mentioned in the OP that savings throws were my least favorite rule in the game.  I can say that learning to RP using other RPGs is what soured me to the D&D style rules. 

I've also got issues with hit points that run out of control as you level up, but your defenses stay put.  That's just upside down to me.  Palladium you get more actions per round, and higher strike, parry/dodge bonuses.  Yes, you get some hit points, but we're talking peanuts.  You probably start with 10 HP & 30 SDC (the other hit points, just non-life threatening), and by max level you may have 20 HP & still just 30 SDC.  What has happened is your strike and parry bonuses went from +3 to +8.