From Newsgroup: rec.games.frp.dnd



So, the other days I was involved in a seance, and whose spirit should
appear but Gary Gygax. He told me that --through the power of his
being dead-- he would grant anyone on Usenet the ability to
retroactively change one rule in D&D that they didn't like, with the
aim of making the game better. Isn't that neat?

Of course, none of that really happened. But let's pretend that it
did. What's the one thing you would change about D&D --from whatever
edition-- that you think was bad for the game. Preferably it should be
a rule that hasn't since been already binned (like, say, the specific weapons-vs-specific armor type bonuses/penalties from 1E) but,
whatever. If that's the one rule you _really_ want dead, go for it.
Ghostly Gygax says its okay. ;-)


* * * *

Me, I'm gonna pick two rules. Partly because I'm the person starting
this thread, so I can do shit like that, but mostly because my first
pick doesn't really count anyway; it's just too broad. So even as I
say it, I'm already disqualifying my first choice. That's just the way
I roll. :-)

* * * *

* Thing 1: Pretty much all those feats introduced in 3E. You know the
type: your character does some action that gives them a bonus to their
rolls. I want them gone. All of them.

[The 'All of them' bit is why I disqualify this choice.]

Not the character's ability to do the actions themselves, of course.
Nor the bonuses or penalties that apply. But I'd stop them from being standardized rules or special abilities that can be earned or included
in a character's build.

Partly because they make the game unnecessarily complex. Partly
because a lot of the feats are just standard actions (like Cleave or Deceitful). Partly because I don't think that a standardized rule fits
all situations, and saying "do this and you instantly get this bonus"
takes away a lot of the game's spur-of-the-moment roleplaying. But
mostly because it makes all the characters into fucking super-heroes
with two many on-tap powers that the players assume will always work.
Plus, if you know that you can always call on a +2 bonus for sleight
of hand checks because you have the Deft Hands feat, you're just not
going to put as much work into convincing the DM that your act of
swapping out the idol will work. The game becomes too much about dice
rolls, and not about thinking and role-playing. So pretty much all
feats must go.

But like I said... that's really too broad, so let's forget that
change. (Anyway, it still gave me a chance to rant about the problem
:-). Instead, here's a more narrowly targeted rule:


* * * *


* Thing 2: Goodbye, short rests.

Because, look; I get it. The way the original D&D worked with wounds
and spells was sort of stupid. Your characters take a few hits and
they'd have to camp out for days just to get back to fighting
strength. But short rests are just as bad.

The old way made D&D much more tactical. When you rested for long
periods, you had to worry about logistics, like food, water and
shelter. You had to worry about random encounters. You had wonder what
the enemy was doing while you gave them an opportunity to regroup. You
rested when you had to; because the fighters were too beaten, or the
wizards had cast their last spell, or the thief notices that the next
room looks particularly bad with regards to traps. You'd need to
decide if you'd camp in place, look for some nearby shelter, or back
out of the dungeon entire. It made you THINK about the situation.

With short rests, you just kick back for an hour and get back most of
your HP and some of your abilities. There's no real risk. Even long
rests are pretty bad, but short rests entirely change the tenor of the
game. It makes the PCs just too overpowered. So that's the rule I'd
get rid of.


* * * *


Those are my picks; what are yours? Gary Gygax's ghost gave you great
power. Don't waste this opportunity. What one rule would you change
about D&D?



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.games.frp.dnd

On 12/1/2025 3:03 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

So, the other days I was involved in a seance, and whose spirit should
appear but Gary Gygax. He told me that --through the power of his
being dead-- he would grant anyone on Usenet the ability to
retroactively change one rule in D&D that they didn't like, with the
aim of making the game better. Isn't that neat?

Of course, none of that really happened. But let's pretend that it
did. What's the one thing you would change about D&D --from whatever edition-- that you think was bad for the game.

First rule I even got rid of, the different female ability score limits.
Let's both alienate women from the game and make it impossible to play
an Amazon.

Preferably it should be
a rule that hasn't since been already binned (like, say, the specific weapons-vs-specific armor type bonuses/penalties from 1E) but,
whatever. If that's the one rule you _really_ want dead, go for it.
Ghostly Gygax says its okay. ;-)

Oh, well that one's long been binned as it didn't appear in any versions
of D&D except 1e.

* Thing 1: Pretty much all those feats introduced in 3E. You know the
type: your character does some action that gives them a bonus to their
rolls. I want them gone. All of them.

5e and 2024 (5.5e? People seem to be calling it 2024 though) made both
that and multiclassing optional. You still get ability score increase,
as feats are optional replacements for those.

Of course when I tried to not allow them I got player rebellion. So yes
I'd love to get rid of them.

In general I don't like character building as it leads to wildly
unbalanced characters. I'm fine with the archetypes of 5e (basically
semi like 2e's specialist wizards) as that's just a single career path
choice.

There's so much in 5e I'd get rid of, but much of it is too tied into
class power, like short rests, advantage/disadvantage, etc. etc. etc.

If you can do more than one I can too:

1. Builds. (at least there aren't any before 3e, see above, even more encompassing than feats.)
2. Ability scores. Just bake the bonuses into the classes & archetypes.
Avoids so much unbalance between characters, still nowhere near builds
in that. (did this in my OSR)
3. Alignments. (also did this in my OSR, though I stole it from BFR)

* Thing 2: Goodbye, short rests.

At least people are less resistant to changing those, using the 'gritty' rests. Unfortunately I really don't like the 'gritty' option either.
And as mentioned getting rid of them greatly impacts some of the classes balance. Especially Warlocks (not that I care there) and Fighters
(that's a base class, which is already under-powered in 5e)
--
-Justisaur

|+-|+
(\_/)\
`-'\ `--.___,
-|-4'\( ,_.-'
\\
^'
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.games.frp.dnd

On Wed, 3 Dec 2025 07:52:34 -0800, Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com>
wrote:

On 12/1/2025 3:03 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

So, the other days I was involved in a seance, and whose spirit should
appear but Gary Gygax. He told me that --through the power of his
being dead-- he would grant anyone on Usenet the ability to
retroactively change one rule in D&D that they didn't like, with the
aim of making the game better. Isn't that neat?

Of course, none of that really happened. But let's pretend that it
did. What's the one thing you would change about D&D --from whatever
edition-- that you think was bad for the game.

First rule I even got rid of, the different female ability score limits.
Let's both alienate women from the game and make it impossible to play
an Amazon.

Preferably it should be
a rule that hasn't since been already binned (like, say, the specific
weapons-vs-specific armor type bonuses/penalties from 1E) but,
whatever. If that's the one rule you _really_ want dead, go for it.
Ghostly Gygax says its okay. ;-)

Oh, well that one's long been binned as it didn't appear in any versions
of D&D except 1e.

I can't remember if we ever used that rule in our campaigns. Then
again, it was rare for anybody to PLAY a female character (even the
few women who actually played the game had a higher tendency towards
playing male characters. But maybe that was just in the groups I
played with).

But we were always pretty lax with attribute rolls anyway; character
generation was usually more along the lines of "how do you imagine
your character? Alright, let's try to roll up stats that match that
idea" rather than letting random rolls create the character for us. So "Halflings get -2 STR" or "Female characters get -2 CON" or whatever
weren't that much of a concern.

* Thing 1: Pretty much all those feats introduced in 3E. You know the
type: your character does some action that gives them a bonus to their
rolls. I want them gone. All of them.

5e and 2024 (5.5e? People seem to be calling it 2024 though) made both
that and multiclassing optional. You still get ability score increase,
as feats are optional replacements for those.

Yeah, 5E greatly reduced the power of Feats, although they're still
there. Largely because, up to that point, the mechanic had resulted in
a lot of min-maxing roll-playing that was (to many) contrary to the
spirit of the game.

Of course when I tried to not allow them I got player rebellion. So yes
I'd love to get rid of them.

Yeah, I'm largely speaking as a DM when I talk about my distaste for
feats. After all, prior to those rules, it was up to the DM to
determine if a character could perform certain actions, and what the
bonuses or penalties for those actions were. They weren't defined and inarguable abilities; they were granted at the whim of the referee. So
there's definitely a bit of "you took away my power!" in my complaint.
;-)

But I do think that Feats did make the game feel a lot more
mechanical, and put too much focus on the rules and dice-rolls rather
than forcing players to work their way through problems. It made the
game /easier/, and given the choice, most people gravitate to the
option that requires less effort on their part.

If you can do more than one I can too:

No fair! Only I can abuse the rules! ;-)

2. Ability scores. Just bake the bonuses into the classes & archetypes.
Avoids so much unbalance between characters, still nowhere near builds
in that. (did this in my OSR)

I mean, sure, that's an option... but I think once you go that route
you've basically changed a huge part of what makes the game D&D.

3. Alignments. (also did this in my OSR, though I stole it from BFR)

I'm not totally against alignments and --in general-- we still use
them in our campaigns. But we're a lot more fluid with them than was
originally intended. Mostly, alignments matter only to those
associated with greater powers (clerics, paladins, and to some degree
rangers and wizards), whilst fighters and thieves get more of a pass
on the subject. The alignments are more of a guide on how your
character is supposed to act, and how NPCs react to you. Going out of
alignment usually doesn't get you much penalty. Then again, staying in alignment doesn't net you any real benefit either.

The exceptions are, of course, characters like clerics, who have to
act in a manner consistent with their beliefs. Act out of alignment
all you want, but don't expect your relationship with your Power to
remain the same.

I always saw alignment as much as behavior as actions. It wasn't just
the intentional choices a character made; it was their (often
unconscious) behavior as well. For instance, a chaotic character would
be 'twitchy', and a lawful character would tend to be a lot more
strait-laced. So if you go out of alignment, people notice that even
if they aren't aware of the specific in-game actions, and NPCs would
react accordingly. I mean, if your best friend who used to be
incredibly compassionate and giving started laughing when he saw
somebody kicking a dog, you'd start wondering about them too. The
disadvantages in our games regarding alignment changes were almost
always /social/ (e.g., how NPCs reacted to you) rather than mechanical
(e.g., dice rolls).

As such, alignment was a useful counter and guide.

* Thing 2: Goodbye, short rests.

At least people are less resistant to changing those, using the 'gritty' >rests. Unfortunately I really don't like the 'gritty' option either.
And as mentioned getting rid of them greatly impacts some of the classes >balance. Especially Warlocks (not that I care there) and Fighters
(that's a base class, which is already under-powered in 5e)

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.games.frp.dnd

On 12/3/2025 9:45 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

On Wed, 3 Dec 2025 07:52:34 -0800, Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com>
wrote:

On 12/1/2025 3:03 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

So, the other days I was involved in a seance, and whose spirit should
appear but Gary Gygax. He told me that --through the power of his
being dead-- he would grant anyone on Usenet the ability to
retroactively change one rule in D&D that they didn't like, with the
aim of making the game better. Isn't that neat?

Of course, none of that really happened. But let's pretend that it
did. What's the one thing you would change about D&D --from whatever
edition-- that you think was bad for the game.

First rule I even got rid of, the different female ability score limits.
Let's both alienate women from the game and make it impossible to play
an Amazon.

Preferably it should be
a rule that hasn't since been already binned (like, say, the specific
weapons-vs-specific armor type bonuses/penalties from 1E) but,
whatever. If that's the one rule you _really_ want dead, go for it.
Ghostly Gygax says its okay. ;-)

Oh, well that one's long been binned as it didn't appear in any versions
of D&D except 1e.

I can't remember if we ever used that rule in our campaigns. Then
again, it was rare for anybody to PLAY a female character (even the
few women who actually played the game had a higher tendency towards
playing male characters. But maybe that was just in the groups I
played with).

True, I don't remember a single girl ever playing in my 1e games* or
anyone else's, except that one I tried to introduce to it I just told
the story about. That's why I removed it.

* I had one in my 2e games, but not sure that counts as she was my
girlfriend first.

* Thing 1: Pretty much all those feats introduced in 3E. You know the
type: your character does some action that gives them a bonus to their
rolls. I want them gone. All of them.

5e and 2024 (5.5e? People seem to be calling it 2024 though) made both
that and multiclassing optional. You still get ability score increase,
as feats are optional replacements for those.

Yeah, 5E greatly reduced the power of Feats, although they're still
there. Largely because, up to that point, the mechanic had resulted in
a lot of min-maxing roll-playing that was (to many) contrary to the
spirit of the game.

Of course when I tried to not allow them I got player rebellion. So yes
I'd love to get rid of them.

Yeah, I'm largely speaking as a DM when I talk about my distaste for
feats. After all, prior to those rules, it was up to the DM to
determine if a character could perform certain actions, and what the
bonuses or penalties for those actions were. They weren't defined and inarguable abilities; they were granted at the whim of the referee. So there's definitely a bit of "you took away my power!" in my complaint.
;-)

But I do think that Feats did make the game feel a lot more
mechanical, and put too much focus on the rules and dice-rolls rather
than forcing players to work their way through problems. It made the
game /easier/, and given the choice, most people gravitate to the
option that requires less effort on their part.

I greatly dislike them as a player as well, which I've done a lot more
of for 5e than DMing. I just want to play, not theorycraft builds and
read all the optimizations, and feel like I'm not doing my part if I
don't. The current character I'm playing I just took the ability score increases, but I feel like that was a waste as I got a couple items that raised my scores to a certain higher score, and a couple of the feats
sounded fun. I don't like I should miss out on a class' fun because I
chose poorly for what to take.

On the other hand I'm playing with a couple newbies and I already feel
too powerful in relation to them.

2. Ability scores. Just bake the bonuses into the classes & archetypes.
Avoids so much unbalance between characters, still nowhere near builds
in that. (did this in my OSR)

I mean, sure, that's an option... but I think once you go that route
you've basically changed a huge part of what makes the game D&D.

I actually like the Dungeon Robber scores best. You have the six
standard scores, but you don't have numbers. Just 2 that are "High" and
give some benefit, and the other 4 are just normal.

I'm tempted to get rid of the mental attributes though as the problems
they introduce annoy me. Oh my character is too stupid to think of
anything, or the opposite - give me some hints, my character is much
smarter than I. Same with charisma and wisdom. Or change them to
something like skill names 'Occult' 'Ritual' and 'Leadership' which
don't have the annoying connotations and affect on role-play.

The physical stats are fine in those respects.

3. Alignments. (also did this in my OSR, though I stole it from BFR)

I'm not totally against alignments and --in general-- we still use
them in our campaigns. But we're a lot more fluid with them than was originally intended. Mostly, alignments matter only to those
associated with greater powers (clerics, paladins, and to some degree
rangers and wizards), whilst fighters and thieves get more of a pass
on the subject. The alignments are more of a guide on how your
character is supposed to act, and how NPCs react to you. Going out of alignment usually doesn't get you much penalty. Then again, staying in alignment doesn't net you any real benefit either.

The exceptions are, of course, characters like clerics, who have to
act in a manner consistent with their beliefs. Act out of alignment
all you want, but don't expect your relationship with your Power to
remain the same.

Clerics have their tenants, no need for alignment. I actually saw less
issue with behavior after removing it, in the all of one low level
campaign I ran.

It's useful shorthand for monster and NPC behavior, but that's about it.
--
-Justisaur

|+-|+
(\_/)\
`-'\ `--.___,
-|-4'\( ,_.-'
\\
^'
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.games.frp.dnd

On Fri, 5 Dec 2025 07:40:45 -0800, Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com>
wrote:

On 12/3/2025 9:45 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

The exceptions are, of course, characters like clerics, who have to
act in a manner consistent with their beliefs. Act out of alignment
all you want, but don't expect your relationship with your Power to
remain the same.

Clerics have their tenants, no need for alignment. I actually saw less >issue with behavior after removing it, in the all of one low level
campaign I ran.

It's useful shorthand for monster and NPC behavior, but that's about it.

We never really had any problem with it, but then again we never made
much issue about alignment. I was never a DM who said to players, "You
can't do that, it's against your alignment; you MUST do this!". I just
took note and applied consequences as I felt necessary. These were
usually social (e.g., NPCs found them more or less trustworthy).

Then again, my players tended to not be assholes anyway. They had a
vision for their character and usually stayed true to that vision. So
if they said, "I'm a hoity-toity uptight Lawful Good Paladin", it was
rare for them to suddenly start decapitating babies in a church, and
if they did, they usually had a good reason (at least from their
character's perspective) to do so. ;-)

Of course, their god might not agree... and I could be harsh with my
divine judgements. But the character was free to act as they chose.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.games.frp.dnd

On Mon, 01 Dec 2025 18:03:09 -0500, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

So, the other days I was involved in a seance, and whose spirit should
appear but Gary Gygax. He told me that --through the power of his being dead-- he would grant anyone on Usenet the ability to retroactively
change one rule in D&D that they didn't like, with the aim of making the
game better. Isn't that neat?

Of course, none of that really happened. But let's pretend that it did. What's the one thing you would change about D&D --from whatever
edition-- that you think was bad for the game. Preferably it should be a
rule that hasn't since been already binned (like, say, the specific weapons-vs-specific armor type bonuses/penalties from 1E) but, whatever.
If that's the one rule you _really_ want dead, go for it. Ghostly Gygax
says its okay. ;-)

* * * *

Me, I'm gonna pick two rules. Partly because I'm the person starting
this thread, so I can do shit like that, but mostly because my first
pick doesn't really count anyway; it's just too broad. So even as I say
it, I'm already disqualifying my first choice. That's just the way I
roll. :-)

* * * *

* Thing 1: Pretty much all those feats introduced in 3E. You know the
type: your character does some action that gives them a bonus to their
rolls. I want them gone. All of them.

[The 'All of them' bit is why I disqualify this choice.]

Not the character's ability to do the actions themselves, of course. Nor
the bonuses or penalties that apply. But I'd stop them from being standardized rules or special abilities that can be earned or included
in a character's build.

Partly because they make the game unnecessarily complex. Partly because
a lot of the feats are just standard actions (like Cleave or Deceitful). Partly because I don't think that a standardized rule fits all
situations, and saying "do this and you instantly get this bonus" takes
away a lot of the game's spur-of-the-moment roleplaying. But mostly
because it makes all the characters into fucking super-heroes with two
many on-tap powers that the players assume will always work. Plus, if
you know that you can always call on a +2 bonus for sleight of hand
checks because you have the Deft Hands feat, you're just not going to
put as much work into convincing the DM that your act of swapping out
the idol will work. The game becomes too much about dice rolls, and not
about thinking and role-playing. So pretty much all feats must go.

But like I said... that's really too broad, so let's forget that change. (Anyway, it still gave me a chance to rant about the problem :-).
Instead, here's a more narrowly targeted rule:

* * * *

* Thing 2: Goodbye, short rests.

Because, look; I get it. The way the original D&D worked with wounds and spells was sort of stupid. Your characters take a few hits and they'd
have to camp out for days just to get back to fighting strength. But
short rests are just as bad.

The old way made D&D much more tactical. When you rested for long
periods, you had to worry about logistics, like food, water and shelter.
You had to worry about random encounters. You had wonder what the enemy
was doing while you gave them an opportunity to regroup. You rested when
you had to; because the fighters were too beaten, or the wizards had
cast their last spell, or the thief notices that the next room looks particularly bad with regards to traps. You'd need to decide if you'd
camp in place, look for some nearby shelter, or back out of the dungeon entire. It made you THINK about the situation.

With short rests, you just kick back for an hour and get back most of
your HP and some of your abilities. There's no real risk. Even long
rests are pretty bad, but short rests entirely change the tenor of the
game. It makes the PCs just too overpowered. So that's the rule I'd get
rid of.

I find these a bit odd because they're not in original Dungeons & Dragons
from 1970s through 1990s, nor Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. You say Gary
Gygax said you could do this, but he didn't work on newer rules set
editions. I'd never use those editions, though might use some rules from
them on case-by-case basis (maybe split ability scores if it was one).
Even if he had worked on them, the first isn't too broad (just something stupid people added from videogame influence which is good enough reason).

Those are my picks; what are yours? Gary Gygax's ghost gave you great
power. Don't waste this opportunity. What one rule would you change
about D&D?

Allowing evil alignment: I ran a game a player insisted on it, which was a mess. He went against the party's ideals did and would've got them a bad reputation if I hadn't just had a divinity intervene, because he was a character from another world anyway.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.games.frp.dnd

On Mon, 01 Dec 2025 18:03:09 -0500, Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

Of course, none of that really happened. But let's pretend that it
did. What's the one thing you would change about D&D --from whatever >edition-- that you think was bad for the game. Preferably it should be
a rule that hasn't since been already binned (like, say, the specific >weapons-vs-specific armor type bonuses/penalties from 1E) but,
whatever. If that's the one rule you _really_ want dead, go for it.
Ghostly Gygax says its okay. ;-)

Annoyances. Opportunity Attack/Attack of Opportunity. Gone. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Who thought this up? Hey, let's make the movement phase of the game slow, pensive, and complicated. FFS, can we please just play? It adds less than nothing to the game. Just let me walk away from somebody already without determinining which squares are "threatened."


Broader tactical remediation. The 6 second round. Gone. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Back to 1-minute rounds in 10 6-second segments.

Why? Mostly, because casting times then mean something again. It takes 18 seconds to cast a Fireball (3 segments). A Flame Strike? 8 segments.
You're at it for almost a minute. PWK is feared again because it is
*fast*. Initiative means something again because spellcasters can
actually be interrupted and have to *choose* if they're going for big
mojo or a quick attack. No more dumping out Flame Strike round after
round like it's candy. You do it once and then everyone knows who to pile
onto. You ain't casting that again if anyone has anything to say about
it.

One "standard action" or "magic action?" No. Just no. Spells are supposed
to be *complicated* and the 6 second round is what really has people
bitching about casters being too powerful. It was not a problem in 1e/2e.

Finally, the most annoying thing the 6-second round got us was people who
think combat should be "realistic." It's not. It's abstracted and always
will be. Nobody gets hit square in the chest with *one* arrow and doesn't
die shortly thereafter. That's real. D&D is not.


3.5e specific. Book of Nine Swords. Gone. `````````````````````````````````````````
Yeah. Here's that caster/melee divide solution we all needed.
Unfortunately, they wrote it as a different game with a whole subset of splatbook specific rules. You're no longer playing D&D. Great. Now I have
to worry about what "stance" my Warblade is in because it gives me some arbitrary bonus on damage or whatever. Make this drek go away please.
Playing a melee character used to be easy. You could hand the sheet to a
newb and they could have fun. Now *nothing* is easy. That's what Tome of
Battle got us in 3.5e.


5e specific. No more than one leveled spell per turn. Gone. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Cast away! Misty Step then all you can do is a cantrip? No. What fun is
that? Why even make it a BA at that point? Let me Healing Word my fighter
then Ice Storm my opponents in the same round. It's more exciting that
way. This rule does nothing for game balance whatsoever. It just makes
people go "aw, shucks." Concentration spells fixed casting balance. This
rule is just... lame.

That's my list.
--
Zag

Give me the liberty to know, to think, to believe,
and to utter freely according to conscience, above
all other liberties. ~John Milton
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.games.frp.dnd

On Sat, 20 Dec 2025 15:58:15 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
wrote:

On Mon, 01 Dec 2025 18:03:09 -0500, Spalls Hurgenson ><spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

Of course, none of that really happened. But let's pretend that it
did. What's the one thing you would change about D&D --from whatever >>edition-- that you think was bad for the game. Preferably it should be
a rule that hasn't since been already binned (like, say, the specific >>weapons-vs-specific armor type bonuses/penalties from 1E) but,
whatever. If that's the one rule you _really_ want dead, go for it.
Ghostly Gygax says its okay. ;-)

Annoyances. Opportunity Attack/Attack of Opportunity. Gone. >```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Who thought this up? Hey, let's make the movement phase of the game slow, >pensive, and complicated. FFS, can we please just play? It adds less than >nothing to the game. Just let me walk away from somebody already without >determinining which squares are "threatened."

I'm not totally opposed to attacks-of-opportunity, but I agree that
modern editions have made it more complicated than necessary. It can
add some tactical thinking to the game, but at the same time it also
tends to force players (and monsters) into static lines where
everybody just stays in one place and whales on the others until the
hitpoint value drops to zero.

I tended to use it more carefully, with a lot of caveats. It only
worked if the monster (or player, for that matter) was directly
engaged with the target, and if he hadn't already made an attack that
round, and wasn't already busy with something else, and only one
attack of opportunity could be made against a character per round. And
even then I tended to give players a free rein and skipped a lot of
attacks of opportunities, just because it made for more free-wheeling
combat.

Broader tactical remediation. The 6 second round. Gone.
Back to 1-minute rounds in 10 6-second segments.
Why? Mostly, because casting times then mean something again. It takes 18 >seconds to cast a Fireball (3 segments). A Flame Strike? 8 segments.
You're at it for almost a minute. PWK is feared again because it is
*fast*. Initiative means something again because spellcasters can
actually be interrupted and have to *choose* if they're going for big
mojo or a quick attack. No more dumping out Flame Strike round after
round like it's candy. You do it once and then everyone knows who to pile >onto. You ain't casting that again if anyone has anything to say about
it.

A one minute round always felt way too long for what was actually
going on, but six seconds was too short. We compromised at 20 seconds,
with 2-second segments. Initiative determined which segment your
attack started; you added weapon/casting speed to that value (or
subtracted any speed bonuses) to get your actually initiative value.
It gave us the benefit of tactical planning without making battles
take an overly-long period of (in-game) time.

(We originally used 10-second rounds, but decided that was still too
short for the amount of activity going on. Twenty seconds seemed a well-balanced medium... and it corresponded well to the d20 ;)
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.games.frp.dnd

On 12/21/2025 9:18 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

On Sat, 20 Dec 2025 15:58:15 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
wrote:

On Mon, 01 Dec 2025 18:03:09 -0500, Spalls Hurgenson
<spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

Of course, none of that really happened. But let's pretend that it
did. What's the one thing you would change about D&D --from whatever
edition-- that you think was bad for the game. Preferably it should be
a rule that hasn't since been already binned (like, say, the specific
weapons-vs-specific armor type bonuses/penalties from 1E) but,
whatever. If that's the one rule you _really_ want dead, go for it.
Ghostly Gygax says its okay. ;-)

Annoyances. Opportunity Attack/Attack of Opportunity. Gone.
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Who thought this up? Hey, let's make the movement phase of the game slow,
pensive, and complicated. FFS, can we please just play? It adds less than
nothing to the game. Just let me walk away from somebody already without
determinining which squares are "threatened."

I'm not totally opposed to attacks-of-opportunity, but I agree that
modern editions have made it more complicated than necessary. It can
add some tactical thinking to the game, but at the same time it also
tends to force players (and monsters) into static lines where
everybody just stays in one place and whales on the others until the
hitpoint value drops to zero.

It's just a more codified 'back attack' when fleeing. There's still a disengage action which allows you to disengage in modern. But I agree
with Zag, as I removed it completely from from my game.

The back attack of AD&D makes lines even more static.

Broader tactical remediation. The 6 second round. Gone.
Back to 1-minute rounds in 10 6-second segments.
Why? Mostly, because casting times then mean something again. It takes 18
seconds to cast a Fireball (3 segments). A Flame Strike? 8 segments.
You're at it for almost a minute. PWK is feared again because it is
*fast*. Initiative means something again because spellcasters can
actually be interrupted and have to *choose* if they're going for big
mojo or a quick attack. No more dumping out Flame Strike round after
round like it's candy. You do it once and then everyone knows who to pile
onto. You ain't casting that again if anyone has anything to say about
it.

A one minute round always felt way too long for what was actually
going on, but six seconds was too short. We compromised at 20 seconds,
with 2-second segments. Initiative determined which segment your
attack started; you added weapon/casting speed to that value (or
subtracted any speed bonuses) to get your actually initiative value.
It gave us the benefit of tactical planning without making battles
take an overly-long period of (in-game) time.

I don't remember what Holmes uses, which is what I started with.
Probably 10 seconds as that's what the other basics use. Which seems
about right. 6 too short, and 60 to long.

I went with 1 minute anyway as I always liked that best. Lots of time
to do what you want. Attack, drink a potion, etc. Movement is
ridiculously slow, but far enough that movement is always less than max
in a dungeon. I mainly went with it as it's more 'natural language' 1
minute instead of/equal to a round.

(We originally used 10-second rounds, but decided that was still too
short for the amount of activity going on. Twenty seconds seemed a well-balanced medium... and it corresponded well to the d20 ;)

Interesting. That reminds me, Champions has a 12 second round. I made
a speedster once that could act many many times in that, but only got to
play him at a con, as my local GM wouldn't allow him. That was my first character. They made me play a bubble boy *stinkface*.
--
-Justisaur

|+-|+
(\_/)\
`-'\ `--.___,
-|-4'\( ,_.-'
\\
^'
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.games.frp.dnd

On Tue, 23 Dec 2025 09:33:54 -0800, Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com>
wrote:

On 12/21/2025 9:18 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

I don't remember what Holmes uses, which is what I started with.
Probably 10 seconds as that's what the other basics use. Which seems
about right. 6 too short, and 60 to long.

I would have sworn Holmes used one-minute rounds too, but no... you're
right.

"In normal movement and exploration, each turn is
considered to be ten minutes... If an encounter or
melee occurs, the Dungeon Master immediately (but
temporarily, for the duration of the encounter)
adjusts the time frame to melee turns consisting
of ten 10-second melee rounds."
-- p4 of the D&D 'blue book'

I went with 1 minute anyway as I always liked that best. Lots of time
to do what you want. Attack, drink a potion, etc. Movement is
ridiculously slow, but far enough that movement is always less than max
in a dungeon. I mainly went with it as it's more 'natural language' 1 >minute instead of/equal to a round.

The biggest problem we had with changing the time was that a lot of
the spells measured time in rounds, and sometimes that would be an
issue if you wanted to use the spell OUTSIDE of combat, which caused a maddening inconsistency (and potential balance issues).

Fortunately, our group was in it mostly for the fun of creating a
story, so it didn't matter too much. There wasn't much in the way of rules-lawyering or min-maxing and we looked on the rules more as a
framework or guideline to creating the tone of the game than a thing
absolute. I was the one probably most bothered by all the exceptions
and abnormalities. ;-)


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.games.frp.dnd

On Wed, 24 Dec 2025 00:14:34 +0100, Gottfried Neuner
<kyonshi@wilderland.ovh> wrote:

Alignments are the big no-no. Yes, they made a tiny bit of sense in >Chainmail, and there is a marginal bit of sense in having it as a three >alignment system in OD&D. But everything that came after it was just
trying to make the best of a bad job.
In effect it's better to just drop them altogether. I mean, how many
other games even have alignment in their rules?
(uhm... RIFTS and the other games in that sphere I think)

Moreover, watch a D&D group have fits over what is "good" and/or "evil." Chainmail's Chaos, Neutral, Law made sense. Pretty cut-and-dry. Do you
value institutions or the individual's contributions to effect change?

But good and evil? It starts to depend on what the player's
political/religious leanings are, and that does not belong at any gaming
table. Every edition has some half-assed definition of this axis, but it
really is so subjective that it isn't worth bothering.
--
Zag

Give me the liberty to know, to think, to believe,
and to utter freely according to conscience, above
all other liberties. ~John Milton
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.games.frp.dnd

On 12/23/2025 3:14 PM, Gottfried Neuner wrote:

On 12/20/2025 10:58 PM, Zaghadka wrote:

That's my list.

Race-as-Class is a stupid idea. And yes, it is flavorful in some parts,
but I think it was never worth the hassle of having to justify why
dwarves or elves couldn't be something else

I like race as class, but they should be different than the human
classes. I did this in my OSR. I've got a cat person 'mew' race that
is kind of like a thief/sorcerer. A dog person that's kind of like a
paladin, and a bird person that's kind of like a cleric-mage. But
they're all different from what the plain combos would be. The mews
can't cast damaging spells, and work like a sorcerer in that they just
cast whatever spells they were born with/unlock per day instead of
having to memorize and choose, etc.

Level limits > Alignments

Agree to those as being bad.
--
-Justisaur

|+-|+
(\_/)\
`-'\ `--.___,
-|-4'\( ,_.-'
\\
^'
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2