Most Ridiculous Rules in RPGS

[Ceiling_Squid]

his point is, I think, that all those earls, barons, and squires had been dismounted/prone, and were immobilized by the weight of their armor, effectively gaining the Helpless condition and being vulnerable to knives even from low-dexterity enemies.

"Immobilized"

Common (and gross) misconception. Armor doesn't impede movement that much, especially because that would be a serious design flaw. A knight in full plate can get up from a prone or supine position just fine, albiet a little bit slower than a man in little to no armor. Being on the ground like that only provided a temporary opportunity to dispatch them, same with any combatant you've knocked over. It was exploiting a moment of vulnerability, especially if they were stunned or injured by the fall.

Of course, any truly "realistic" combat system would also have to account for dispatching heavily-armored opponemnts via sheer blunt force (maces, etc), aside from just finding the chinks in armor with finesse.

So we're now back to overcomplicating things, because both strength and dexterity have a place in melee.

[Khedrac]

Just to clarify; I think the class/level thing in D&D is the only mechanic in the game that is truly BAD. Every other part of playing D&D (rolling to hit, skill checks, saving throws, ability scores, magic) is, at worst, flawed (not irredeemably so) and whatever flaws were there could be easily compensated for. No campaign of D&D was ruined by rolling a D20 and adding modifiers versus an AC score in order to simulate a melee attack. The Vancian magic thing was never my cup of tea, but I'd like to note that the magic in most TRPG systems is rarely a stand-out.* In isolation, having magic be a specifically limited resource via spell slots is a serviceable mechanic.

But the second D&D passes the ball to class/level, the opposing team is up by five touchdowns and the coach is eaten by a bear. Every mechanic is worse off because one class is badly written or one level just makes five numbers go up by one AND NOTHING ELSE.

*I mean, what's the greatest magic system you've ever seen in a TRPG? I think a popular choice is usually Ars Magica - and that's a game where the designers CLEARLY thought the campaign should be focused on people who do are DEFINED by casting spells, so of course they put a lot of effort into making spellcasting mechanically compelling and richly flavoured.

Well lots of games of D&D would have been ruined by "rolling a D20 and adding modifiers versus an AC score in order to simulate a melee attack" - because that is a concept introduced to D&D in 3rd Ed - so D&D games played with earlier versions simply don't work like that.
Personally I really don't like the way BECMI D&D (optional rules) and 3.0 & 3.5 handle skills - I find it is a system that defines what people cannot do not what they can (and yes, it is made worse by the fact it is in a level-based system) and no, the flaw with this way of handling skills is not easy to compensate for (especially as diplomancers are a thing) - it is something that can be endured.
As for levels making five numbers go up or down and nothing else - pre 3rd Ed most D&D levels were that, indeed after level 9 very few classes even got hit dice - they got 1-3 hit points per level flat.
Probably the biggest mistake with 3rd Ed's class levels is they tried to make all classes equivalent - older versions of D&D had radically different amounts to xp required to level depending on the class (e.g. 1st to 2nd level - 1200xp thief, 2000xp fighter, 4000xp elf).

Incidentally if you think the way D&D handles class levels is bad, try RoleMaster - in many ways they are a lot worse!

[Knaight]

Thats an odd sentiment. Could you clarify?

It seems like you are saying that if you want to play a fantasy game that isnt class and level based you should just get over it and either play d&d or leave the hobby.

If so, I have to ask, what is wrong with making an RPG that is actually designed for the style of game you want to play rather than trying to hack an existing game that isnt suited for it?

That's not what's being said. What's being said is that there are a lot of class based systems that are pretty much D&D knockoffs with nothing much to recommend them. That isn't every class based system - Legend from these very forums is a D&D knockoff with some carefully different design that works as a replacement, Torchbearer is class based but is actually a Burning Wheel spinoff with a different focus, so on and so forth.

[Talakeal]

That's not what's being said. What's being said is that there are a lot of class based systems that are pretty much D&D knockoffs with nothing much to recommend them. That isn't every class based system - Legend from these very forums is a D&D knockoff with some carefully different design that works as a replacement, Torchbearer is class based but is actually a Burning Wheel spinoff with a different focus, so on and so forth.

That makes more sense then.

I thought he was saying "hatred for class based systems inspires people to make fantasy heartbreakers" rather than "fantasy heartbreakers feel the need to include classes just because d&d did it".

I fully agree with the latter sentiment.

[Cazero]

Well lots of games of D&D would have been ruined by "rolling a D20 and adding modifiers versus an AC score in order to simulate a melee attack" - because that is a concept introduced to D&D in 3rd Ed - so D&D games played with earlier versions simply don't work like that.

Claiming that replacing THAC0 with BAB (wich is mathematicaly equivalent, follows the intuitive idea that bigger is better, and has a much simpler acronym) would "ruin D&D" is quite an extreme position.

[The Glyphstone]

"Immobilized by the weight of their armor" happens to be much more myth than reality.

More likely, those men were already injured in some way, but might have lived had they not been "finished off" by the "dagger-men".

I've seen the videos of re-enactors in full plate doing cartwheels, I should have included more qualifiers.

People like Desmond Seward were, however, fully believing of said myth and wrote assuming it was true, hence the quote.

[Khedrac]

Claiming that replacing THAC0 with BAB (wich is mathematicaly equivalent, follows the intuitive idea that bigger is better, and has a much simpler acronym) would "ruin D&D" is quite an extreme position.

Perhaps, but go and look at BECMI D&D which does not use THAC0 - it uses a system that is close but not the same, the attack table is not actually linear (20, 30 etc each repeat 5 times).

I agree it would not 'ruin' such games, but I was trying to make the point that Shoot Da Moon was talking about '3.0/3.5 D&D' when he (or she) was saying 'D&D' which has a lot more variability in it than he (or she) apparantly realised. The point here is that whilst you may have an issue with a rule of a game system, it helps to be specific about which game system you are talking about as different versions may actually be very different game systems under the same name.

[arclance]

Dark Heresy - the severity of perils of the warp relies entirely on how bad your roll is, with no relation at all to how much power you've tried to draw upon. So with some bad luck, you could TPK the party while trying to conjure some light.

One of the people I played Dark Heresy (v1) with had that happen to them once.
In the first 15 min. of play they used a psychic power for the first time and rolled perils, accidentally summoning a Demon and killing the whole party.

When I played one player rolled a Jam about 80% of the time he made a ranged attack.
Rolling a Jam with a grenade made you roll on the grenade fumble table and he liked grenades.
The team lead, a Adeptus Arbite, had to revoke his grenade privileges or he would have killed us all with the fumble table.

[Max_Killjoy]

Levels in D&D classes have, as far as I know, had problems with empty levels (thus, caster supremacy) and class-specific mechanics that were insufficiently integrated with other mechanics or otherwise esoteric (psionics and Vancian magic, to name two). The worst classes in D&D(-likes) often began with "this class has its OWN gimmick of abstract resources" (ninjas with Ki or gunslingers with Grit, for instance, both underwhelmed AND add (unnecessary?) gameplay complications). How much was a level in 3.5 Fighter worth compared to a level in 3.5 Wizard? If the values in levels (with the same amount of experience points needed to reach those levels) are not comparable, then you are just wasting ink writing up an inferior class. Why am I reading several pages of rules about sneaking, Lockpicking, rolls to hit, diplomacy and investigating a murder mystery, when there are spells that render those rules redundant? (Invisibility, Knock, save or die, Charm Person, Zone of Truth.) The magic system is the real rule set of D&D 3.5, all other rules are basically for people who chose the wrong class at character creation and are now proverbially bringing a knife to a gunfight. Any class must ALWAYS be worth playing, gaining any level must ALWAYS be an achievement of this much worth, or the system is promising Choose-Yo-Own-Adventure and delivering Three Card Monte. Linear Warriors and Quadratic Wizards has plagued D&D for...ever? because a class/level system can easily self-sabotage and be hard to fix without simply tearing out the guts. At best, it is simply doing what a point-buy system already did, but in a more rigid and uncreative way.


Long story short; I think the D&D level-class thing is a game-able abstraction that fails to A) be simple enough to work as an abstraction (gaining a level often means a lot of accounting all at once) and B) good enough as game design (the feat tax, trying to home-brew a D&D class and actually come out the other side with a good result is notoriously tricky, multi-classing, empty levels, etc.). Video games with class/level stuff typically do it better because it's game designers, put simply, are less concerned with allowing a more total freedom for players than you'd expect when playing a TRPG. The video game design space is much more limited, more controlled, and it was never meant to be really free form. That means the VG designer can give the players these options, and make all of those options somehow meaningful in play, assuming he knows what he is doing. But that same class/level thing will clash with a design space that is inherently more chaotic and open than the VG one. Am I making sense here?

I think I'm derailing the thread here. I should probably say no more than this post.

And I thought I didn't like the level-class construction that D&D sadly made so common in RPGs...

[Max_Killjoy]

I've seen the videos of re-enactors in full plate doing cartwheels, I should have included more qualifiers.

People like Desmond Seward were, however, fully believing of said myth and wrote assuming it was true, hence the quote.

Fair enough.

[Milo v3]

That makes more sense then.

I thought he was saying "hatred for class based systems inspires people to make fantasy heartbreakers" rather than "fantasy heartbreakers feel the need to include classes just because d&d did it".

I fully agree with the latter sentiment.

Yeah, I was saying that latter + "and because heartbreakers are easy to make, it is easier for it to give the impression it's unoriginal since so many have done it unoriginally".

[goto124]

I've never played GURPS because most people who play games with me had an eventful session where they spent hours filling out a character sheet. Either they lack an attention span (always possible), or GURPS has very complex character sheets...

I feel I would spend a couple of months just filling out the sheets, and never get round to actually playing the game.

And I thought I didn't like the level-class construction that D&D sadly made so common in RPGs...

Common enough that less experienced people pop up and say "wait, there's another way to do it? Other than levels and classes?"...

Wait, we already have super-long threads on level/class vs point buy, and it seemed we settled that level/class wasn't all the bad things people sometimes make it out to be. I think.

[Segev]

Is this thread about whether class/level systems are bad, or about ridiculous rules?

[AMFV]

Is this thread about whether class/level systems are bad, or about ridiculous rules?

Started out as the latter, devolving into the former around post 40 (well that was the Vancian Magic debate, which pulled into the Class/Level debate). Occasionally comes back for air, but has been pretty thoroughly derailed more than a few times (see above example about unhorsed knights a few posts ago). Generally comes back to class/level every dozen or so posts.

[Max_Killjoy]

Is this thread about whether class/level systems are bad, or about ridiculous rules?

Yes.



It's going to be hard to completely avoid all "derails" in a thread where people are asked to note which RPG rules they find ridiculous -- there's often going to be someone tempted to defend a rule that another has listed as ridiculous.

[Orderic]

There are two quite ridiculous rules from the Dark Eye that I would like to mention here.

In 4.1, first edition of WdZ(Wege der Zauberei, the book about magic), it was possible for an ore elemental to create infinite sand.

Also in 4.1, there is WdA (Wege der Alchemie, book about alchemy and creating magic items), in which it is, by certain interpretations of the rules, possible to gain more magic points by combining the right materials in a magical item you are creating.

[Sith_Happens]

The Explosions do more damage in small spaces rule: Another game tries to emulate that hand grenades etc do more damage if you are in a confide space with them when they go boom.
However the formula used "breaks thru" at a certain size of space and well... The end result before it was corrected in a later edition made you HEAL if you pulled the pin from a grenade, held it in your hand, and managed to squeeze yourself into a standard size old-fashioned outdoor trashcan (the kind you have standing in your yard). The number basically went haywire when there was too little space between you and the wall.

Oh, wow. I've heard of drown-healing, but grenade-healing is something else entirely.

How do I know this? Because I play M&M, which doesn't use a hit points system. Instead, it uses an "injury track", wherein characters acquire a variety of different injury types depending on how poorly they fail on their save against the enemy's attack. Some varieties of injuries simply make it easier to take further damage, while others are debilitating to varying degrees. Thus, a sense of realism that hitpoint systems lack. But you know what? The injury track is awful anyway, because of just how debilitating some of the injuries can be. Fail by 10 or more against a lethal attack and you're disabled and functionally out of the fight (since doing anything that requires a standard action will result in your character falling unconscious). The fact that a single poor dice roll can effortlessly screw you over is one of the things I dislike about the game's combat system, and the game in general.

3e improves things a lot, mainly by making lethal damage an optional rule in the Gamemaster's Guide but also by lessening the severity of some of the damage conditions.

In earlier editions, wizards' spells did not de-memorize when they slept (I have no idea if that's how it still works or not)

It is indeed still how it works.

[thirdkingdom]

Is this thread about whether class/level systems are bad, or about ridiculous rules?

I think there's a disconnect for some people between "this rule is objectively bad and deserves mockery" and "I don't like that."

[Chauncymancer]

Common (and gross) misconception. Armor doesn't impede movement that much, especially because that would be a serious design flaw. A knight in full plate can get up from a prone or supine position just fine, albiet a little bit slower than a man in little to no armor. Being on the ground like that only provided a temporary opportunity to dispatch them, same with any combatant you've knocked over. It was exploiting a moment of vulnerability, especially if they were stunned or injured by the fall.

If I'm remembering correctly, those men actually were almost completely immobilized. Not (at least for the most part) by their armor, but because several days of hard rain had turned Crecy into a bog, and a man who stood still too long would start sinking in the mud up over his toes. Being knocked to the ground meant you were basically stuck, not helped by the fact that an unhorsed man will hit the ground hard enough to cause a concussion.

[Bohandas]

My most ridiculous rule: The gold to exp rule was pretty ridiculous in AD&D 2e. One time I had a player open up a gold mine to gain exp through this method. From there on, I scrapped that rule.

Was that a real core rule in 2e or was it al Unearthed Arcana-style alternate rule? If it was an official rule I think Champions of Krynn and Baldur's Gate have been stiffing me.

What is your most ridiculous rule.

Dragon breath weapon save DCs in 3.x are constitution based, which is odd since since it's a reflex save it seems like it should take account the dragon's ability to aim (which would be either dex, str, or int)

3.x save DCs in general are overly formulaic, general being based entirely on the monster's hd and a single ability score and ignoring all other factors, however seemingly relevant they may be.

[The Glyphstone]

Was that a real core rule in 2e or was it al Unearthed Arcana-style alternate rule? If it was an official rule I think Champions of Krynn and Baldur's Gate have been stiffing me.

Official rule, AFAIK. 2e was a very different dynamic in general; it actively encouraged you to do stuff like sneak past a monster to steal its treasure, because if you got 100 XP from fighting the monster and 1000XP from its gold stash, but risked death/serious injury in the fight, that 100XP might not be worth it. Characters were much more fragile in those days (and also easier to replace, to be fair).

[Telok]

Interesting thing that come up recently,

In 5e D&D a paralyzed, unconsious, immobilized victim retains all dexterity bonuses to AC. Thus if you tie this person to a post and shoot at them with a crossbow from 110 feet away, they are just as hard to hit as if they were awake and running.

[Cazero]

Dragon breath weapon save DCs in 3.x are constitution based, which is odd since since it's a reflex save it seems like it should take account the dragon's ability to aim (which would be either dex, str, or int)

When you can fill the entire room with fiery death, accuracy isn't that much relevant. Duration is. A breath weapon is logically made stronger by lung capacity, wich is covered by CON.

[Lord Torath]

Was that a real core rule in 2e or was it al Unearthed Arcana-style alternate rule? If it was an official rule I think Champions of Krynn and Baldur's Gate have been stiffing me.

It was an official rule in 1st Edition AD&D, and an optional rule in 2nd Edition (in the DMG). Baldur's Gate has been stiffing you, yes. But I believe Champions of Krynn has not been. (Although it has been over a decade since I played any of the Gold Box games, so I may be mistaken).

[WrittenInBlood]

Spoiler: 5e specific correcting compulsion

Show

Interesting thing that come up recently,

In 5e D&D a paralyzed, unconsious, immobilized victim retains all dexterity bonuses to AC.

True.

Thus if you tie this person to a post and shoot at them with a crossbow from 110 feet away, they are just as hard to hit as if they were awake and running.

False. In 5e, attacks against unconscious, stunned, paralyzed, petrified or restrained have advantage (roll 2d20, choose better one). Most of them also are auto-crits. That's more than lowering AC by 5 at most.

[Telok]

SPOILER=5e specific correcting compulsion]False. In 5e, attacks against unconscious, stunned, paralyzed, petrified or restrained have advantage (roll 2d20, choose better one). Most of them also are auto-crits. That's more than lowering AC by 5 at most.
[/SPOILER

Check the range on crossbows again, 110 is outside of short range. The auto crit only applys to attacks from less than 5 feet away.

More hilarity: The 5e DMG lists a cannon as taking three actions to use. One each to load, aim, and fire. Thus a cannon with a crew of 3 people can fire every six seconds. A cannon with a crew of 6 people can fire twice a round.

[Max_Killjoy]

Check the range on crossbows again, 110 is outside of short range. The auto crit only applys to attacks from less than 5 feet away.

More hilarity: The 5e DMG lists a cannon as taking three actions to use. One each to load, aim, and fire. Thus a cannon with a crew of 3 people can fire every six seconds. A cannon with a crew of 6 people can fire twice a round.

Eventually, you get an autocannon?

[thirdkingdom]

Official rule, AFAIK. 2e was a very different dynamic in general; it actively encouraged you to do stuff like sneak past a monster to steal its treasure, because if you got 100 XP from fighting the monster and 1000XP from its gold stash, but risked death/serious injury in the fight, that 100XP might not be worth it. Characters were much more fragile in those days (and also easier to replace, to be fair).

This is another case of not really a ridiculous rule but rather a failure to understand it is part of how the game is *meant* to be played. To be fair, I didn't get it when I was young and playing BECMI or 1e, either. I posted earlier in the thread a breakdown of how opening a gold mine is really *not* the best use of the average adventurer's time*. These days, if a player wanted to do that I'd shrug and let them go ahead and do it, understanding that mining isn't as simple as pulling gold pieces out of the ground. The mine's got to be protected, supply lines and roads have to be established, mercenaries have to be hired to guard the claim and miners hired to work the veins. The ore has to be dug out, smelted, taken to a market likely some distance away, all the way risking wandering encounter checks, raids from bandits and so forth, to say nothing of having to *do* something with the gold once they get to a market. If they really want to play Miners and Mule Trains instead of D&D I'll run with that.


*I'm running a higher level domain hexcrawl now with a focus on establish and running domains, and operating mines *is* actually something the PCs are doing, but it's totally not the focus of the game.

[Knaight]

Eventually, you get an autocannon?

You run out of space around the cannon first.

[Max_Killjoy]

This is another case of not really a ridiculous rule but rather a failure to understand it is part of how the game is *meant* to be played. To be fair, I didn't get it when I was young and playing BECMI or 1e, either. I posted earlier in the thread a breakdown of how opening a gold mine is really *not* the best use of the average adventurer's time*. These days, if a player wanted to do that I'd shrug and let them go ahead and do it, understanding that mining isn't as simple as pulling gold pieces out of the ground. The mine's got to be protected, supply lines and roads have to be established, mercenaries have to be hired to guard the claim and miners hired to work the veins. The ore has to be dug out, smelted, taken to a market likely some distance away, all the way risking wandering encounter checks, raids from bandits and so forth, to say nothing of having to *do* something with the gold once they get to a market. If they really want to play Miners and Mule Trains instead of D&D I'll run with that.


*I'm running a higher level domain hexcrawl now with a focus on establish and running domains, and operating mines *is* actually something the PCs are doing, but it's totally not the focus of the game.

My problem with stuff like this that there's a conundrum... if the players have that sort of asset, they keep drawing on it "for free" if I don't threaten it, and if I do threaten it, I feel like I'm playing right into a terrible trope.