Five things that would change the game forever

[maddman75]

I would turn it into Blue Rose.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Personally, I'm all about options. The more the better. A new edition should be as customizable as possible.

Alignment I would keep. As has been said, D&D has always been about good vs. evil. There are plenty of other games out there to choose from that don't have it. A new edition of D&D could make it optional, of course.

Skills are just about right as they are. I'd keep them, but again, make the game so that it is an option to use them or not.

I like stat scores rather than mere bonuses. Instead of eliminating stat scores, I say expand what can be done with them. I dunno what that would entail, to be honest.

I guess what it all boils down to is this: a new edition should have a very simple baseline version that is playable in itself, and lots of options that can layered on as the individual gamer sees fit.

 

[ForceUser]

D&D is not about crafting, bluffing, diplomacy, or wilderness survival. It is about kicking in doors and taking the stuff of others.

For you.

 

[VirgilCaine]

Ever think you're just playing the wrong game to begin with?

Yeah, that's the solution.

 

[Psion]

That being said, the changes Emirikol suggested wouldn't really make it any less D&D. No more so than several dozen other changes that have been made to D&D over the years, in any case.

I disagree. You extract alignment and lump in everything to one type of magic, it most certainly would alter several fundamental traits of the game. It would remove the fundamental good-versus-evil conflict nature of the game, and the division of the capabilities of cleric and mage/magic-user/wizard magic produces two of the "fundamantel four" pillars/niches of the game.

 

[Psion]

I like alignment. Although I don't think it's necessarily universal, IME people who bitch about the alignment system don't understand it or how to use it.
Aside from removing a level of granularity with regard to ability damage and drain (a concept that D&D desperately needed (and needs to use more)), this will simply never happen because everybody likes to talk about thier character's "18 in whatever stat."
I could live with this change, but I'm so used to the way D&D does it, it's second nature and doesn't bother me in the slightest.
Screw that. They've got skills almost right. Group sensory skills under a blanket "Perception (whatever)" skill, and there's not much else to do.
Gah! No! God, please, no. If anything (and I don't necessarily think anything needs to be dome), it'd be better to make classes like the paladin and ranger prestige classes.

Well, with the exception of futzing with the skills groupings (which honestly wouldn't bother me that much), "me too" to this post.

Of course, it's an expression of how much said changes would make WRT it's fundamental appeal to, not maintaining some fundamental nature of the game. Which some people repeatedly prove to me are two different things.

 

[Psion]

For you.

Word.

To me, D&D is about a team of characters with complementary abilities standing against great evil.

 

[Turanil]

Without being a house-rule's post, any other thoughts?

IMO, one thing would go a great length to change the game forever: stop speaking about things unrelated to the game for half of the gaming session.

 

[Dave Turner]

For you.

No, I think the game isn't designed for these things. The social systems in the game are not nearly as developed and comprehensive as the systems for combat and physical action. There are no substantive rules for handling a game in which social action is the primary method for solving conflicts.

To me, D&D is about a team of characters with complementary abilities standing against great evil.

I agree, but would add that it's a team of characters who stand against evil using combat and physical action, not Diplomacy.

 

[Psion]

I agree, but would add that it's a team of characters who stand against evil using combat and physical action, not Diplomacy.

True, but not having a well developed diplomacy system is not the tantamount to making a game about "killing things and taking their stuff." IMO, that's a hostile qualification that critics of the game use to try to generalize the behavior of some small portion of it's player to the game as a whole. Not all players are driven by treasure and only treasure, and the presence of the alignment system means that the characters cannot really escape being judged for their actions.