If you were able to design your own version of D&D, how would you do it?

TarionzCousin · Dec 29, 2018

I would build holodecks

that would run the game seamlessly, with customizable rules and AI included--and all for the low low price of $100 and a mere $20/month subscription for six people. #instantbillionaire

Blue · Dec 29, 2018

Lanefan said:
One idea - and I just now thought of this and thus it has exactly zero playtesting or math analysis to back it up - might be to use d% instead of d20, and in order to to give a bell curve always read the dice such that you take the result closest to 50. Thus, if you've a 1 on one die and a 5 on the other that'd be 51 (no matter which particular die the 5 was on). The range would be reduced such that in effect it's be a bell-curved d-90, as anything with a 0 would by this method become a multiple of 10 rather than '0x' as the multiple of 10 will always be closer to 50.

The advantage of this is simple: more granularity, thus giving more range and-or options for any given roll. Along with this comes a greater range of possible bonuses/penalties - a +1 here doesn't mean nearly as much as on a 3d6 or 2d10 curve; but you can still have it, or +2 or +3 or whatever. +5 would be more or less the same +1 on 2d10 but still worse than +1 on 3d6.

The tricky part would be training ourselves to read the dice the right way to make this work.

That sounds interesting, so I gave it a try. This is a graph of getting at least the number listed:

Unfortunately it is mostly linear, but I applaud thinking outside the box looking for something new. It seemed reasonable.

Lanefan · Dec 29, 2018

[MENTION=20564]Blue[/MENTION] - I think there's something decidedly amiss with your graph. Using the system I suggested, getting any result between 01 and 09 is impossible as those pairings of dice would always be read in reverse (as the reverse gives a number closer to 50).

After that, the odds of getting any number should look like a bell curve (though maybe a bit wonky) with its extremes at 10 and 00 and the rather flat high point around 50-51.

Blue · Dec 29, 2018

Lanefan said:
[MENTION=20564]Blue[/MENTION] - I think there's something decidedly amiss with your graph. Using the system I suggested, getting any result between 01 and 09 is impossible as those pairings of dice would always be read in reverse (as the reverse gives a number closer to 50).

After that, the odds of getting any number should look like a bell curve (though maybe a bit wonky) with its extremes at 10 and 00 and the rather flat high point around 50-51.

The graph is "at least", not a distribution. So 100% of the time you have at least a 1.

Guest 6801328 · Dec 29, 2018

I haven't read through all 5 pages, but has anybody pointed out that you CAN design your own version of D&D? Where does "If you were able..." come from?

Or maybe the phrasing is an implicit acknowledgement that doing so is much harder than some of the loudest complainers seem to think.

Guest 6801328 · Dec 29, 2018

Oh, but to answer the question, my version of D&D would NOT include a lot of features I desire in an RPG, because it wouldn't really be D&D by the time I got through with it. But I would...

- Use a different scheme for stat generation, so that you don't end up with cookie cutter builds
- Move attribute bonuses from race to class
- Replace ASI/feat choice with feats only, but each feat comes with a +1 stat
- Abolish rapiers
- Give archers more penalties/risks for non-optimal situations
- Take a little bit of power out of classes and move to sub-classes, to give more flexibility in sub-class design
- Back off from the "use your main ability score for everything" philosophy, with the goal of making everybody a bit more MAD. (E.g., a Dex melee build should still get some combat bonus from high Str.)
- Increase differentiation (abilities and tactics) between monsters.

Jacob Lewis · Dec 29, 2018

Elfcrusher said:
I haven't read through all 5 pages, but has anybody pointed out that you CAN design your own version of D&D?

Yeah. On pages 1-5. That's pretty much the entire thread. Everyone talking about how they CAN. Just can't agree on how they should. Now you're all caught up without having to waste any effort reading or considering anyone else's input. Enjoy!

Guest 6801328 · Dec 29, 2018

Jacob Lewis said:
Now you're all caught up without having to waste any effort reading or considering anyone else's input.

Oh, wait, was that sarcasm?

EDIT: Ok, so now that I've read/skimmed through all 5 pages, I think you grossly misunderstood my point. Because I didn't find a single reference to that point on any of the 5 pages, let alone all of them.

I was trying to suggest that you don't need to get hired by WotC to design and play your own version of D&D. So the bigger, philosophical question of "are you able to do this", not just laundry lists (of which mine is an example) of what you'd redesign if you got around to it (which honestly isn't really addressing "if you were able" even by your definition. It's more answering "how would you?"). That's the great thing about tabletop RPGs, right? They're not like video games where all you can do is wish for features/changes. You can rewrite the rules, and then play with your rules. So there's no hypothetical about it. You CAN design your own version, and play it! Maybe you can't replace the official version with your version, but to have fun at your own table you don't need to.

Jacob Lewis · Dec 29, 2018

Elfcrusher said:
Oh, wait, was that sarcasm?

EDIT: Ok, so now that I've read/skimmed through all 5 pages, I think you grossly misunderstood my point. Because I didn't find a single reference to that point on any of the 5 pages, let alone all of them.

Why yes. That is sarcasm. And it's free!

I do think your philosophical explanation comes off better than your first statement, which comes off as nitpicking over the choice of words. Most who have responded on this thread kinda knew the implication.

So maybe I was confused. You're not seeing any posts talking specifically about the philosophical idea of "CAN" we make our own version of D&D? Because I'm seeing their answer in their ideas about how they can do/are doing/have been doing it.

Incidentally, I agree. You can change some minor things easily. But when you start changing too many things or critical components, like the d20, you need to do a lot more work. Too much change and it becomes a whole different game, but it could still be another version of D&D. I think it is time we has more options anyway.

Satyrn · Dec 29, 2018

Blue said:
The graph is "at least", not a distribution. So 100% of the time you have at least a 1.

It should also be saying 100% of the time you have at least a 7 or 9, too, though.

If you were able to design your own version of D&D, how would you do it?

TarionzCousin

Second Most Angelic Devil Ever

Blue

Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal

Lanefan

Victoria Rules

Blue

Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal

Guest 6801328

Guest

Guest 6801328

Guest

Jacob Lewis

Ye Olde GM

Guest 6801328

Guest

Jacob Lewis

Ye Olde GM

Satyrn

First Post

Similar Threads