From: dchmelik@gmail.com   
      
   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.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)