The One Hour Game, continued (BD&D as a baseline)

[Ratskinner]

In other words B/X D&D has no monopoly on simplicity, and has many non-simple things in it that existed purely because it was closely based on OD&D, not because they made sense. We're past that now and don't need to go back to get simplicity. Nor do we need to have things like "must have a cleric" or casters that end up far outstripping any other character, nor arbitrary class/race restrictions, etc.

must spread....

 

[Ariosto]

1. Which version of BD&D would we use to build upon? We have OD&D, Holmes, B/X, and BECM. I personally prefer BECM, but that's just me.

The distinction has never seemed worth making in my circle (which mixes indiscriminately both published and unpublished material).

However, BECM -- with its 36-level plan -- "stretches" some things (e.g., thief function probabilities) relative to other versions. AD&D goes the other way with fighters' chances to hit (albeit with the higher ACs starting a point harder).

2. If we could "cherry-pick" things from later versions of (A)D&D, what would we grab?

A. Character balance by level and/or experience point total.

B. Lower character mortality, especially of the sudden "save or die" type (but I'm looking at you, too, fire balls and lightning bolts).

I happen to dig the game form for which the original D&D rules were written, but that seems to have been a minority taste for a long time.

The main thing to my mind is to keep the ease of cherry picking and modification that comes with loose integration of systems, even if tighter coupling (as in 3e/4e) is also available as a (probably more popular) option.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I just don't see a reason to go back to things like decending AC that has magical pluses from armor being subtracted from it and weirdness like that. The horribly arbitrary and unclear list of saving throw categories, etc. If it is pure nostalgia that people want, there's nothing like the real thing. For a NEW game that will be released in the 21st Century, not really seeing it.

Not speaking for anyone else, but when I advocate starting from BECMI, I mean something more general than stuff like the above. For something like AC, start with the general feel and range of BECMI, but definitely clean up the descending bit. How to clean it up? Pick from the later versions, or take the lessons learned when they cleaned it up and try something new.

Ideally, I'd like a modern design that was built as if the original sensibilities of BECMI had been present in some insightful, time-traveling individual who had a host of better techniques to do the same thing he was trying to do earlier.

I want Bach with access to computers and synthesizers, not Def Leppard limited to harpsichords.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The distinction has never seemed worth making in my circle (which mixes indiscriminately both published and unpublished material).

However, BECM -- with its 36-level plan -- "stretches" some things (e.g., thief function probabilities) relative to other versions. AD&D goes the other way with fighters' chances to hit (albeit with the higher ACs starting a point harder).



A. Character balance by level and/or experience point total.

B. Lower character mortality, especially of the sudden "save or die" type (but I'm looking at you, too, fire balls and lightning bolts).

I happen to dig the game form for which the original D&D rules were written, but that seems to have been a minority taste for a long time.

The main thing to my mind is to keep the ease of cherry picking and modification that comes with loose integration of systems, even if tighter coupling (as in 3e/4e) is also available as a (probably more popular) option.

IME the 'loose integration' that existed in OD&D/BECMI/AD&D did nothing for allowing options and modularity. In fact it made it harder. If you look at 4e, just from a system design perspective, it is far easier to build different types of subsystems on it (and certainly no harder) than it was in any of those older systems. In fact what you find is that the the robust core mechanics do 99% of the work for you.

We just had a debate about rules for intoxication. Within 3 minutes a good solid system for handling this in 4e was fashioned. One that allows for existing magic/skills/etc to work with it, effects during both combat and non-combat situations, etc and it is universally applicable. Now, make such a system for AD&D. You'll have to take into account combat, thief skills, initiative, surprise, and general activities (presumably ability checks) all separately. This isn't even counting some other subsystems like morale and loyalty, reactions, etc.

The problem with the loose coupling theory is that everything can affect almost everything else because almost any combination of things CAN come up in an RPG, and will come up eventually. The 'we use some other random type of dice here' systems of yore were terribly brittle because you had to patch together some sort of different interface between each subsystem when they did come into play together. Consistent core systems just don't have that problem.

Not speaking for anyone else, but when I advocate starting from BECMI, I mean something more general than stuff like the above. For something like AC, start with the general feel and range of BECMI, but definitely clean up the descending bit. How to clean it up? Pick from the later versions, or take the lessons learned when they cleaned it up and try something new.

Ideally, I'd like a modern design that was built as if the original sensibilities of BECMI had been present in some insightful, time-traveling individual who had a host of better techniques to do the same thing he was trying to do earlier.

I want Bach with access to computers and synthesizers, not Def Leppard limited to harpsichords.

hehe, yeah, I kind of figured you would say something like this That's basically what I was outlining. I'd still rather put 4e-like power mechanics and a short skill system on top of it, but you can still have a vastly simpler system than BECMI that provides a pretty similar overall aesthetic. At least that's my story and I'm sticking to it!

 

[Endur]

I guess what I would want is something as simple as the Basic Edition edited by Holmes, but incorporating all of the simplicities of the Essentials set.

i.e. fixing THACO with 4e armor. Fixing saves with fort, reflex, will, etc.

I might actually prefer basic set classes & races over 4e classes and races.

And I certainly prefer basic set conditions vs. essentials conditions.

I'd want monsters at least as simple as the monster descriptions in the basic set.

 

[Stormonu]

My revision would be all over the place.

I'd probably start with 2E.

- Remove racial level limits, ability and race limits and multiclass restrictions
- Return "missing" races and classes from other editions (namely Half-orc, Assassin, Monk, Barbarian - possibly Cavalier)
- Standardize class and race ability check to d20 rolls
- Allow ability increases @ 1/3 levels, but cap increase to max 18.
- Attack bonus/BAB would replace THAC0.
- Use ascending AC; put a soft cap at AC 30.
- Use the 3 saves of 3e/4e instead of the 5 saves.
- Cap level HD at 9th level.
- Use the PF skill list, but skills would start at 8 and add ability modifier (somewhat like Skills and Powers).
- Each class would get X skill points every level.
- Bring back roll-each-round initiative and announcing your action before rolling (primarily to bring back the fear of spell disruption)
- Chart with "target" monster values by level similar to 4E, though greatly flatten the math
- retain 3e feats for combat options. No feat to provide +X bonuses.

 

[paladinm]

I guess what I would want is something as simple as the Basic Edition edited by Holmes, but incorporating all of the simplicities of the Essentials set.

i.e. fixing THACO with 4e armor. Fixing saves with fort, reflex, will, etc.

I might actually prefer basic set classes & races over 4e classes and races.

And I certainly prefer basic set conditions vs. essentials conditions.

I'd want monsters at least as simple as the monster descriptions in the basic set.

I have to ask, what "simplicities of the Essentials set" do you have in mind? There are a Few things from 4e (and especially Essentials) that I would incorporate, just like there are some things from 2e, 3.x, and maybe even Pathfinder.

As far as saves go, it sounds like they're leaning more toward having a save associated with each attribute score. Which I'm ok with: a "Fortitude save" is a Constitution or Strength save anyway.

Definitely go with BAB and ascending AC.