Basic D&D rides again!

[Breakdaddy]

The worst thing I've seen in Dungeon for years was the cover feature for 105, Warduke, the Critical Threat based on an action figure. For crying out loud, this was utterly devoid of merit in every conceivable sense. Infuriatingly puerile.[/color]

You are so wrong (IMHO)! If you are an old school player that watched the cartoon, then it is a nice reminiscence of the days of old when the flavor of the D&D game was new. I applaude the addition of warduke in this issue of Dungeon if for nothing else than the nostalgia it evoked in myself and most of my players. Puerile? Maybe it would be good to remember we are talking about a game here. Close-mindedness is puerile given this simple fact.

 

[diaglo]

You are so wrong (IMHO)! If you are an old school player that watched the cartoon, then it is a nice reminiscence of the days of old when the flavor of the D&D game was new. I applaude the addition of warduke in this issue of Dungeon if for nothing else than the nostalgia it evoked in myself and most of my players. Puerile? Maybe it would be good to remember we are talking about a game here. Close-mindedness is puerile given this simple fact.

if you are a true old-school player you will note Warduke came out long after the game was introduced.

 

[Breakdaddy]

if you are a true old-school player you will note Warduke came out long after the game was introduced.

Yes sir, as did the cartoon. However, wouldnt you agree it was fun too see him as a critical threat in the Dungeon issue in question? Man, I played Quest for the Heartsone wayyyy back in the day. *sigh* I am gettin' old.

 

[spacecrime.com]

Actually, I suspect the basic kit is going to look at lot like an updated and improved version of the current <i>D&D Adventure Game</i> introductory boxed set.

Which is a good thing, mind you. I've used that kit to turn a lot of kids on to D&D over the last few years, and I think it'll be even better with a bunch of miniatures to get them going.

cheers,

 

[Voadam]

I've often thought about writing up a lite version of the full rules to be an intro set. The srd is very nice, but it is huge and unwieldy. My thoughts were:

Only three races, elves, dwarves, humans.

Only three classes, fighter, rogue, sorcerer.

Don't offer multiclassing.

This provides nine character options and the classes are fairly customizable with feat and spell choices. It also covers fighting, spellcasting, and indiana jones adventuring D&D character niches.

Cut down the spell list to maybe five to ten straightforward spells per level.

Don't offer item creation feats.

Only provide a certain number of monsters so it is not overwhelming.

Healing would have to come from resting and potions you bought at a potion shop. The other options would be allowing cure spells on the sorcerer list but that makes it in conflict with core rules, or to allow clerics, which are very D&D but not as necessary for a fantasy RPG experience.

I've debated whether to keep class vs. cross-class skills or to make everything class skills, probably keep the class skills if it is to work as a compatible intro system. I also debated not including skills at all and give rogues a class ability to detect and disarm traps, open locks, climb, etc. as if they had maxed out their skill selection in these skills. To keep it completely compatible probably best to have full skill rules.

Probably keep combat exactly the same, but maybe not include all the combat options (sundering might go, tripping, bull rushing).

Maybe simplify xp to advance a level every four games.

Probably not include alignment

The idea is to provide functional mechanics but not bury the new player in a blizzard of options and variations while they learn the basic mechanics. It should still have the same fantasy dungeon crawl feel though, it should be a playable game, not just a primer. They should still be able to kill things, take their stuff and wander about a neat, evocative fantasy world.

The skills and intricacies of combat options (especially AoO) would probably be the most complex aspects of the system.

Of course this has not progressed beyond the thinking stage.

 

[Joe123]

It is interesting to note that TSR did a revival/republication of Basic D&D when AD&D 2nd edition was still out. Later, in 1991, they stopped publishing adventures and so forth for Basic D&D, (products weren't selling I believe). Knowing this, why would WotC do the same by re-releasing the Basic D&D rules?

 

[jrients]

It is interesting to note that TSR did a revival/republication of Basic D&D when AD&D 2nd edition was still out. Later, in 1991, they stopped publishing adventures and so forth for Basic D&D, (products weren't selling I believe). Knowing this, why would WotC do the same by re-releasing the Basic D&D rules?

I believe that many people would agree with me when I state that TSR occassionally made an unwise decision. In my opinion ending the D&D product line was one of them. I've met lots and lots and LOTS of players who got their start in gaming on the various Basic editions.

 

[Bards R Us]

Actually, I suspect the basic kit is going to look at lot like an updated and improved version of the current <i>D&D Adventure Game</i> introductory boxed set.

Which is a good thing, mind you. I've used that kit to turn a lot of kids on to D&D over the last few years, and I think it'll be even better with a bunch of miniatures to get them going.

cheers,

Gotta agree there. Maybe perhaps make it so that the number of people required to play be more flexible (i.e. anywhere from 2 to 8 players say)

 

[MerricB]

It is interesting to note that TSR did a revival/republication of Basic D&D when AD&D 2nd edition was still out. Later, in 1991, they stopped publishing adventures and so forth for Basic D&D, (products weren't selling I believe). Knowing this, why would WotC do the same by re-releasing the Basic D&D rules?

Because they're not.

They're (most likely) releasing a new edition of the Basic D&D rules, based on the 3.5E ruleset, and leading into regular D&D 3.5E.

Cheers!

 

[jmucchiello]

I've often thought about writing up a lite version of the full rules to be an intro set. The srd is very nice, but it is huge and unwieldy. My thoughts were:

Only three races, elves, dwarves, humans.

Only three classes, fighter, rogue, sorcerer.

It's not D&D without the Cleric. I'd lament the loss of small races but not too much.

Cut down the spell list to maybe five to ten straightforward spells per level.

And the sorcerer knows them all.

I've debated whether to keep class vs. cross-class skills or to make everything class skills, probably keep the class skills if it is to work as a compatible intro system. I also debated not including skills at all and give rogues a class ability to detect and disarm traps, open locks, climb, etc. as if they had maxed out their skill selection in these skills. To keep it completely compatible probably best to have full skill rules.

Character get +1/level in x class skills, chosen at character creation. Very simple and close to core. Perhaps reduce the number of skills. I don't think getting the skills exactly the same is necessary since converting between two skill lists would not be hard.

Probably keep combat exactly the same, but maybe not include all the combat options (sundering might go, tripping, bull rushing).

Ditch AoO first. Disallow ranged and magic attacks if someone is standing next to you. Might even ditch the grid just have two or three abstract "positions": "In melee", "close", and "distant".

Probably not include alignment

Again, it's not D&D without it in the rules (just make it seem very optional).

Of course this has not progressed beyond the thinking stage.

I've more than thought about it but I don't think anyone would buy it from me. It would have to be a print product. My goal would be the whole kit and kaboodle in 64-96 pages. Perhaps printed in 6x9 (Bad Axe) size, lightly illustrated.