Why I don't like Dungeons & Dragons

[Cluedrew]

Related question: are there any "rules-heavy" games that don't have a system mastery demand associated with them?

Admittedly... no. Now even rules-light game have some lesser degree of system mastery as part of them, and this will increase as the rules become more numerous. Actually as far as I know the only way to get ride of all required system mastery is to give the player no input into the game. This is problematic.

The thing is you can get good things in return for increasing system mastery requirements. Which is why I said it can be a style choice. But at the same time D&D seems, and I mean by my initial instincts on the matter, to add to the demand without a lot of benefit, with things like trap options, where decision points are placed and the amount of planning ahead you have to do in some cases. Someone with more system mastery than me would probably have to comment.

Spoilering my response to Cluedrew re: Vancian magic, since it's long and the discussion has moved on a bit:

Woot. Woot. I get my own spoiler. I'm actually going to be replying in kind because I had a bunch of points written out when I realized the main thing I was trying to get at.

Spoiler: On particular points

Show

This basically comes down to a difference in design goals. D&D magic is designed to be able to do anything, because the original Chainmail rules gave wizards a grab-bag of random effects that D&D then had to formalize.

And I think that is- Oh you say that part later. But the other part comes back to problem 1: The design goals for an RPG and a wargame shouldn't be the same.

Conversely, Shadowrun was not only explicitly designed with a single setting in mind [...], so it's more thematically focused.

And I think that is a good thing. I have heard that Shadowrun has its own set of martial-caster problems (and I'm not surprised it has some scoping problems, you need really good restraint for that sort of thing), but I still think that, just comparing those introductory texts that Shadowrun does a better job creating its base than D&D, with the exception I noted.

prepared spells aren't dangerous and more powerful ones don't harm the spellcaster because the spells aren't completed (and thus don't hold any power that could harm the caster) until they're cast.

But how does the spell go from 0 to full power in 6 seconds? What is the point of all that preparation then if nothing happens or gets built up during it? A now this calls to mind the metaphor of creating a vessel and then poring liquid into it. Because you can throw away an empty vessel without spilling any liquid. But then wouldn't the amount of power (liquid) be independent from the complexity of the vessel (spell level)? Why does it always take the same amount of time to fill a vessel? And this is yet another conflicting explanation of what is going on. ... This bit is a little bit ranty, I managed to catch myself before I started screaming about where is the logic.

TL;DR: If you dislike D&D's magic system, don't accuse the Vancian system of vague metaphysics, call it flavorless, and blame it for Linear Warriors, Quadratic Wizards; instead, blame AD&D for focusing too much on backwards compatibility and WotC for missing a great opportunity to clean up its flavor and mechanics.

Actually it is not the Vancian part of it that give me the problem. Actually that part, on its own it actually pretty interesting. But as I zoom out, I don't see how it connects to anything.

The Main Point:
Ultimately my issue with D&D's magic system is that if feels like an explanation for the mechanics. This works great in a wargame where you are trying to create a thematic justification for the more strategic aspects of the game. In a role-playing game you want to do at least a little bit in the other direction, explore the theme in mechanics. D&D doesn't do that, all the weird edge cases that come up tend to be made into the most sterile solution (see releasing spells). The explanations usually go just far enough to explain what is going on, but not enough to make it seem alive. And on top of that the explanations are not always consistent.

So yeah, there are good parts to D&D magic, but it all comes together to form an explanation that works if you stay zoomed out. But for me, if I zoom in on someone who uses magic for a living (that is, I play a caster) I am just left wondering because I don't have enough detail to fill in what happens at that level. I, for instance, cannot accurately describe what my wizard character would actually be doing during that hour of spell preparation time at the beginning of the day.

[Anonymouswizard]

Related question: are there any "rules-heavy" games that don't have a system mastery demand associated with them?

Kind of. More rules-heavy games tend to ask for more system mastery, but in many of them it's more important to have a similar level of system mastery as the GM does, because otherwise you end up with one of the following outcomes:
-If you have more system mastery than the GM then the game either becomes a) so easy as not to be fun anymore or b) you play a intentionally suboptimal character in order to not cause problems*.
-If you have less system mastery than the GM then the game becomes much harder for you.

Now, there are games where system mastery isn't as important. Legends of the Wulin is theoretically as complex as D&D 3.X, but is much more streamlined and comes out at somewhere between rules-medium and rules-heavy (depending on definition), and due to the way character creation is set up everybody is going to be around the same level of power (warriors are slightly better in combat, but only if they can pull off maintaining their Chi Conditions, and even then an average party can throw around enough beneficial Chi Conditions to make it even), and will either have more in-combat power and versatility, or more out-of-combat versatility, although the latter allows for a very different way of doing combat. However, it's nowhere near as heavy as say Anima, where picking the wrong class at character creation can eat up a lot of DP, or The Dark Eye, where it's nonobvious what's useful to first time players (sure I could get all Combat Techniques up to 12 easily, but really I should leave all except for 2-4 at 6 to sink more points into useful skills).

* This is where I am at the moment in a game of D&D 5e. Despite having the least play experience of the group, I have most rules understanding, and so if I played a wizard I could potentially debuff encounters into nothing. Another player is just as good at char-op as I am, but his concepts go for gimmick over practicality, so he's playing a bizarre halfing bard/rogue(/monk when we get to higher levels) multiclass, while I'm specifically using a character that, while good, needs a few more levels (I get Extra Attack when we hit character level 6, and then I can take more levels of cleric), and have been banned from using the powers from my level of cleric (....'because I haven't been inspired yet', despite being the only PC who is deeply religious).

[Airk]

Yes.

If I have two tactical options, one with a 74% chance of success, and the other 86%, of course I'll pick the 86%. (Though likely what precisely would happen would be different, so I might go for the 74% chance if the success result is better.)

But there's no reason you need the exact percents for this. You don't care that one is 74% and one is 86%. You care that one of them is more likely to work than the other.

If you have a dice pool system, and you have one roll that needs 4 successes on 6d6 and one that needs 3 successes (or one action that needs 3 successes on 5d6 and one that needs 3 successes on 6d6), you can easily tell which one is more likely to work even though you have no idea what the exact percents are. The exact percents don't add anything to your decision making. And this is more immersive, because your fighter isn't calculating that he's got a 75% chance to hit with his sword, or a 67% chance to hit with his axe, but he has an instinctive feeling that the sword is more precise.

As someone who has spent a lot of time working on homebrew systems and analyzing existing systems, and creating new material for existing systems, and so on, the math is CRITICAL for me.

I absolutely have to know what a +1 bonus or a change in difficulty or whatever really means for the game's mechanics.

Picked up a copy of Yggdrasill, and I could tell fairly quickly that the creators had not done their math -- the average character will not, on average, pass an average difficulty characteristic "test".
.

Math is CRUCIAL on the game DESIGNER side. but the exact numbers are generally irrelevant on the player side.

To be fair, noncombat skills have existed in one form or another since OD&D: X-in-6 d6 rolls as class features for certain classes in OD&D, thief skills/backgrounds/sage specializations in 1e, nonweapon proficiencies in 2e, and Craft/Knowledge/Perform/Profession in 3e. D&D has never just been about being a badass adventurer--even at its most dungeon-crawliest, it also involved wilderness survival and exploration, army-raising, kingdom management, and the like--so stripping out everything not directly relevant to combat or moving between combats isn't going back to pre-3e D&D, it's going back to Chainmail.

I disagree; Being a badass adventurer isn't only about combat. It's also about overcoming wilderness obstacles, and deciphering arcane runes, and walking on narrow ledges next to perilous ravines and the like. But it is NOT about how many silver pieces you can make by playing the lute or whether or not you can run a farm. You have to differentiate non-combat skills from non-adventuring skills. D&D4E has a full suite of adventuring skills.

[Khedrac]

I thought Rolemaster is more like Rollmaster and a pain to actually calculate with?

Rolemaster had tables for (nearly) everything. How the game actually played totally depended on the DM

Some GMs could make it fluid and fun (unless something got a kill crit on your character at level 1, or you rolled a kill fumble).
Other GMs find it unbearably painful trying to find the relevant tables which makes it just as bad for the players.

Both the Rolemaster GMs I played with were the first sort and I had no idea how they did it - I still have the greatest of respect for them for that.
I still have no idea how (or if) they managed to track xp according to the rules. You get xp for everything - damage taken, damage dealt, crits delievered, death etc.

As I said, it is very rules heavy, but the players just roll the relevant skill, the DM has to know what everything means and how it works.
Yes, you can use spells more or less effectively (e.g. don't worry about getting good at casting a fireball if all your attack skill is with bolt spells not balls, you won't hit anything with it) but since each class is separate (as I said, no cross-classing) there's not much system mastery one can use beyond choosing a good class for what you want to do.

[CharonsHelper]

But there's no reason you need the exact percents for this. You don't care that one is 74% and one is 86%. You care that one of them is more likely to work than the other.

They exact difference matters if they accomplish different things.

[Airk]

They exact difference matters if they accomplish different things.

I'm not sure I follow. Can you elaborate or give an example where it matters precisely how different the chances of success are?

[CharonsHelper]

I'm not sure I follow. Can you elaborate or give an example where it matters precisely how different the chances of success are?

In D&D terms (not because it's the perfect example, but because it's likely a common terminology) if you're up against a will o wisp.

Say you have a 40% of hitting the will o wisp's AC with your sword, and you have a 30% chance of grappling it. You should probably go for the grapple because it's the better way to actually finish it off, but it's a bit of a judgment call.

[BayardSPSR]

But there's no reason you need the exact percents for this. You don't care that one is 74% and one is 86%. You care that one of them is more likely to work than the other.

...

Math is CRUCIAL on the game DESIGNER side. but the exact numbers are generally irrelevant on the player side.

As a designer, I care about every fraction of a percent. But as a GM and even as a player, the number still matters. Knowing the difference between a +1 that changes p(good) from 5% to 10%, and a +1 that does the same from 50% to 55%, is important beyond knowing that +1 is better. Likewise, knowing the magnitude of the difference between the differences matters.

Is making decisions based on calculated probabilities realistic in a simulation of a fast-paced, high-stakes decision-making process? No - though it could arguable be seen as a representation of the little things a character knows that a player can't, due to abstraction (tempo, length of stride, state of sweat on forehead). And if you're playing a tactical game, rather than a simulation, you would be foolish to make decisions based on intuition.

Hell, even outside of tactical gaming, it matters. Let's say you're choosing between a 1d12 greataxe and a 2d6 greatsword. Knowing the probabilities of the two will give you exact knowledge of how swingy and how effective the use of both is going to be, and lets you choose which is the kind of feel you want to have in a fight. Now imagine comparing both of those to 3d3 and 5d2 weapons; it may not be immediately obvious what's more effective. If you are, you'll be able to work out how optimized your group is, who's punching above or below their weight, who ought to be doing better and is only getting screwed by the dice, and so on - all things that need to be accurately perceived for the social health of the group. Of course, you won't necessarily want or need to do every single calculation for this, but playing with unintuitive dice mechanics will make it more difficult to estimate things quickly and accurately. The exact number may not often matter, but being able to work out the exact number certainly does.

[Quertus]

And that is really how I feel about it. As BayardSPSR said, the fact you have to think outside the box to get it to do what you want really shows that it is not meant for that. If your best stories of D&D are not combats, you should consider switching systems. Personally I would gladly trade the third way I have to hit someone with a sword (or the forth ability I have to set them on fire) for an ability that reflects... well anything really. The traditional woodworking my character inherited form her parents, the ability to make good clothing, the random ancient language my wizard learned as a student.

Yes, D&D has non-combat. No I'm not saying we should rid it of combat. But for me the balance is way off.

Hmmm... Personally, I like for games to have parts where you have the opportunity to think outside the box. Like how the 2e Swiss army fighter carries a bag of flour (although that's pretty well inside the box of standard, tried and true tactics at this point). But you don't have to think outside the box for D&D combat - unless the monster is straight up immune to your attacks!

You do, however, generally have to think outside the box for puzzles - something I suspect everyone will agree is historically a strong part of D&D gameplay.

I'd say my best D&D moments are role-playing - whether that role-playing occurred inside or outside of combat.

To BayardSPSR: I think I know what your getting at (role-play doesn't stop when combat starts)... and now I can't help but wonder how I could modify how I play chess to represent how my characters would play it.

But here is the thing, the amount of stuff you can say in combat about your character is very small for the amount of time it takes to play it. Further more if the thing I want to say about my character is "I have no idea how to fight" then 4 encounters a day of hiding behind the paladin are going to get boring.

I never tried it for chess, but I actually built the Magic the Gathering decks I thought some of my characters would most enjoy playing.

If you're going to get bored of hiding behind the paladin, don't play that character. Me, I never get bored of Quertus cowering behind the party reading his book while the more competent combatants handle that... combat thing.

You can say all kinds of things about your character in combat, by what they say, how they choose their targets, how they fight, how they work with others, how they react to innocents in danger or surrendering opponents, when and how they flee, how they adapt to new challenges, etc. I agree it's inefficient, but... IME, so is anything else where the whole party is getting to demonstrate who they are. Here, at least, you get the added joy of playing a war game while learning about everyone's character.

Sorry, that was the opposite of what I was trying to say - my intended point was that the combat game you're constantly playing eats up a lot of time that could be spent roleplaying, making in-character decisions, resolving conflicts, increasing tension, etc.

If you're not roleplaying, making in-character decisions, resolving conflicts, or dealing with tension in combat...

Your quite right about "roll under" system not being a good simulation, but it makes it much simpler than "modifier"systems.

You find "roll under" systems much easier than, say, d20? Hmmm... I may have to find some 7-year-olds to experiment on test that theory out.

There are some that say the fewer rules governing RP, the more flexible and easy RP gets. Some games have no rules regarding whether NPCs successfully lie to your character, you merely interpret their words as truths or lies based on your judgment.

Myself, I think of it less in terms of the sheer mass of rules and more in terms of how effective existing rules turn out to be. For the different editions of DnD, I feel that alignment, used in a sane way, can be a very effective tool for enhancing RP while the rules for convincing people and lying have tended to be very bad for RP.

My stance is, alignment is the worst thing to happen to role-playing in the history of RPGs. So, tough audience. Sell me on this idea that alignment can enhance RP.

Also, how have social skills / rules been a detriment to RP, in your experience?

I have never had any troubles with the alignment system. I don't know why everyone else does (beyond some particular "don't do that" cases)

It stopped being a problem for me when I started leaving that section of my character sheet blank, and stayed telling DMs that I was going to consistently RP my character's personality, and they could call that whatever alignment they chose to.

So, even if it wasn't a problem for you, like it eventually wasn't for me, what did it add to your games? What made it worth having?

For me, putting a "Good" entry in "Alignment" is often the only IC justification for taking the "plot hooks", otherwise I have a hard time not role-playing my PC's leaving the scene, and just going to safety and opening a tavern or something.
With the '70's Adventures I grew up on the PC's motivations were easy to justify; loot Dungeons to get rich. Now that the Adventures are largely "save innocents from evil", Alignment is often the only hat to hang on I can think of as to why my PC is willing to risk his neck (this is also why "hero" back-story comes hard to me, I just don't think in "hero").

So, if I don't have "good" written down for my alignment, that's justification to ignore an adventure? ... Is this why people have problems with evil characters? Because they don't know how to write plot hooks beyond, "you're good, so you'd do this"?

In D&D terms (not because it's the perfect example, but because it's likely a common terminology) if you're up against a will o wisp.

Say you have a 40% of hitting the will o wisp's AC with your sword, and you have a 30% chance of grappling it. You should probably go for the grapple because it's the better way to actually finish it off, but it's a bit of a judgment call.

And knowing 40/30 matters compared to, say, unlikely / slightly less likely why?

[Vitruviansquid]

My stance is, alignment is the worst thing to happen to role-playing in the history of RPGs. So, tough audience. Sell me on this idea that alignment can enhance RP.

Also, how have social skills / rules been a detriment to RP, in your experience?

You could scroll all the way back to where you quoted me and then read the subsequent discussion we had in this thread about these topics.

[Bohandas]

D&D also has the issue, not mentioned by the OP, that due to the way skill points are handled the order of what levels you take in what classes matters, which makes creating multiclass NPCs a pain

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Gygax clearly states that the magic was always intended to be "Vancian", and used the word "memorized" to describe the process.

Several elements, the unquestioned foremost being the magic system used in these games. To my way of thinking, the concept of a spell itself being magical, that its written form carried energy, seemed a perfect way to balance the mage against other types of characters in the game. The memorization of the spell required time and concentration so as to impart not merely the written content but also its magical energies. When subsequently cast — by speaking or some other means — the words or gestures, or whatever triggered the magical force of the spell, leaving a blank place in the brain where the previously memorized spell had been held. Because I explained this often, attributing its inspiration to Jack Vance, the D&D magic system of memorized then forgotten spells was dubbed by gamers “the Vancian magic system”.

Other people may be fine with this, but to me, it's infinitely silly.

I'm well aware of the origin of D&D magic, my point is that the word "memorized" does not describe Vancian magic, and that's the whole problem. That quote describes exactly what I've been saying--that it's not just a matter of knowing some words, it's the written spells themselves that have power--and "memorization" gives entirely the wrong idea, whether for D&D where spell preparation involves ritual pre-casting or in the original Vance where spells have pseudo-intelligence, take up residence in the caster's brain when prepared, and want to be cast.

But how does the spell go from 0 to full power in 6 seconds? What is the point of all that preparation then if nothing happens or gets built up during it? A now this calls to mind the metaphor of creating a vessel and then poring liquid into it. Because you can throw away an empty vessel without spilling any liquid. But then wouldn't the amount of power (liquid) be independent from the complexity of the vessel (spell level)? Why does it always take the same amount of time to fill a vessel? And this is yet another conflicting explanation of what is going on. ... This bit is a little bit ranty, I managed to catch myself before I started screaming about where is the logic.

The idea of the caster being a vessel that you pour magic energy into, and then empty it of energy when the spell is cast, isn't really what Vancian is about. Think instead of a piece of complicated machinery, like a computer: you can have 99% of a computer assembled and plugged into the wall, but hitting the power button won't do anything until that last important piece is there--and once it is finally assembled the computer pulls all the necessary power from an external source, either an outlet or a battery, the circuitry itself doesn't generate the power. Likewise, power consumption and complexity aren't really correlated; you can have phones that hold days' worth of charge and massive supercomputers that suck down tons of power, but you can also have old clunky laptops that are power hogs and energy-efficient desktops that barely sip from the outlets.

Computing is actually a good analogy, since the Dying Earth series implies that magic is essentially a semi-sentient form of advanced mathematics and theoretical physics that can form into physical beings and is "programmed" through spells:

Spoiler: Dying Earth quotes

Show

In this fashion did Turjan enter his apprenticeship to Pandelume. Day and far into the opalescent Embelyon night he worked under Pandelume's unseen tutelage. He learned the secret of renewed youth, many spells of the ancients, and a strange abstract lore that Pandelume termed "Mathematics."

"Within this instrument," said Pandelume, "resides the Universe.

Passive in itself and not of sorcery, it elucidates every problem, each phase of existence, all the secrets of time and space. Your spells and runes are built upon its power and codified according to a great underlying mosaic of magic. The design of this mosaic we cannot surmise; our knowledge is didactic, empirical, arbitrary. Phandaal glimpsed the pattern and so was able to formulate many of the spells which bear his name. I have endeavored through the ages to break the clouded glass, but so far my research has failed. He who discovers the pattern will know all of sorcery and be a man powerful beyond comprehension."

So Turjan applied himself to the study and learned many of the simpler routines.

"I find herein a wonderful beauty," he told Pandelume. "This is no science, this is art, where equations fall away to elements like resolving chords, and where always prevails a symmetry either explicit or multiplex, but always of a crystalline serenity."

"Cannot you change me?" cried T'sais. "You are a magician. Must I live my life out blind to joy?"

The shadow of a sigh penetrated the wall.

"I am a magician indeed, with knowledge of every spell yet devised, the sleight of runes, incantations, designs, exorcisms, talismans. I am Master Mathematician, the first since Phandaal, yet I can do nothing to your brain without destroying your intelligence, your personality, your soul—for I am no god. A god may will things to existence; I must rely on magic, the spells which vibrate and twist space."

Rhialto's attention had been distracted by Osherl in the matter of indenture points, and he had heard only a phrase or two of Sarsem's response: "—accuracy of high degree!" and "—occasionally a curious kinking and backlash in the inter-aeon sutures—"

Ildefonse had put another inquiry and again Osherl's attempts to secure advantage had diverted Rhialto's attention, and he had only heard Sarsem discussing what seemed to be mathematical theory with Ildefonse: "—often closer than the thousandth part of one percent, plus or minus, which must be reckoned excellent."

Magic is a practical science, or, more properly, a craft, since emphasis is placed primarily upon utility, rather than basic understanding.

This is only a general statement, since in a field of such profound scope, every practitioner will have his individual, style, and during the glorious times of Grand Motholam, many of the magician-philosophers tried to grasp the principles which governed the field.

In the end, these investigators, who included the greatest names in sorcery, learned only enough to realize that full and comprehensive knowledge was impossible. In the first place, a desired effect might be achieved through any number of modes, any of which represented a life-time of study, each deriving its force from a different coercive environment.

The great magicians of Grand Motholam were sufficiently supple that they perceived the limits of human understanding, and spent most of their efforts dealing with practical problems, searching for abstract principles only when all else failed. For this reason, magic retains its distinctly human flavor, even though the activating agents are never human. A casual glance into one of the basic catalogues emphasizes this human orientation; the nomenclature has a quaint and archaic flavor.
[...]
A spell in essence corresponds to a code, or set of instructions, inserted into the sensorium of an entity which is able and not unwilling to alter the environment in accordance with the message conveyed by the spell. These entities are not necessarily 'intelligent,' nor even 'sentient,' and their conduct, from the tyro's point of view, is unpredictable, capricious and dangerous.

The most pliable and cooperative of these creatures range from the lowly and frail elementals, through the sandestins. More fractious entities are known by the Temuchin as 'daihak,' which include 'demons' and 'gods.' A magician's power derives from the abilities of the entities he is able to control. Every magician of consequence employs one or more sandestins. A few arch-magicians of Grand Motholam dared to employ the force of the lesser daihaks. To recite or even to list the names of these magicians is to evoke wonder and awe. Their names tingle with power.
[...]
The magicians of the 21st Aeon were, in comparison, a disparate and uncertain group, lacking both grandeur and consistency.

The Main Point:
Ultimately my issue with D&D's magic system is that if feels like an explanation for the mechanics. This works great in a wargame where you are trying to create a thematic justification for the more strategic aspects of the game. In a role-playing game you want to do at least a little bit in the other direction, explore the theme in mechanics. D&D doesn't do that, all the weird edge cases that come up tend to be made into the most sterile solution (see releasing spells). The explanations usually go just far enough to explain what is going on, but not enough to make it seem alive. And on top of that the explanations are not always consistent.

So yeah, there are good parts to D&D magic, but it all comes together to form an explanation that works if you stay zoomed out. But for me, if I zoom in on someone who uses magic for a living (that is, I play a caster) I am just left wondering because I don't have enough detail to fill in what happens at that level. I, for instance, cannot accurately describe what my wizard character would actually be doing during that hour of spell preparation time at the beginning of the day.

That's fair. Like I said before, I don't disagree that D&D's flavor came after the mechanics and were made to fit them, or that other systems' intertwined flavor and mechanics can make for better in-world explanations. I just object to the ideas that Vancian magic is a poorly-thought-out veneer slapped on top of the rules (when it's quite internally consistent and there's plenty of supporting flavor within and preceeding D&D) and that it's a uniquely D&D problem (when every game suffers from the same problem to some degree and many games are worse).

I disagree; Being a badass adventurer isn't only about combat. It's also about overcoming wilderness obstacles, and deciphering arcane runes, and walking on narrow ledges next to perilous ravines and the like. But it is NOT about how many silver pieces you can make by playing the lute or whether or not you can run a farm. You have to differentiate non-combat skills from non-adventuring skills. D&D4E has a full suite of adventuring skills.

And I disagree that it's not important to have rules for non-adventuring stuff (which I called "noncombat stuff" rather than "non-adventuring stuff" because that's the term you used originally). If nothing else, you need to be able to tell how good someone is at growing food, building things, or making a living for the mid-level domain management stuff that has, again, been part of D&D since the beginning, but it's also relevant to low-level adventuring: building things like vehicles, weapons, traps, and the like with Craft can have a huge effect on adventures, and Perform and Profession (along with Gather Information and things like business and affiliation rules) often feature heavily in urban and intrigue campaigns.

Now, I agree that adventuring and non-adventuring stuff shouldn't necessarily use have to the same resources; Secondary Skills in 1e and Nonweapon Proficiencies in 2e were entirely separate from class abilities and advanced independent of level, after all. But they should be in the game in some form.

[Cluedrew]

I never tried it for chess, but I actually built the Magic the Gathering decks I thought some of my characters would most enjoy playing.

If you're going to get bored of hiding behind the paladin, don't play that character. Me, I never get bored of Quertus cowering behind the party reading his book while the more competent combatants handle that... combat thing.

The Magic: The Gathering decks are cool. Still... although I might be committing the Playgrounder's Fallacy but this is about D&D so... how long do those combats take and what are you doing during that time? It is not the problem of hiding behind the paladin, but that if all I do (regularly) is say "I hide behind the paladin" and then sit back for an hour, that is going to wear thin eventually. It may depend on the frequency and length of combats, both are pretty high in D&D. But then if it works for you, go for it.

Also I made some other comments explaining what I felt I got out of alignment, have you read those? Is there and additional details you would like?

That's fair. Like I said before, I don't disagree that D&D's flavor came after the mechanics and were made to fit them, or that other systems' intertwined flavor and mechanics can make for better in-world explanations. I just object to the ideas that Vancian magic is a poorly-thought-out veneer slapped on top of the rules (when it's quite internally consistent and there's plenty of supporting flavor within and preceeding D&D) and that it's a uniquely D&D problem (when every game suffers from the same problem to some degree and many games are worse).

It is more like a well thought-out veneer rolled out over the rules. Let's try this as a summery: It does what it does well, but I just don't think it does enough.