If you could have created D&D before Gygax..

[mmadsen]

For magic items, rather than an explicit gold-piece value -- which, as Aethelstan points out, implies a commodity market -- I'd have a nearly identical numerical value (magic points?) and, in the spirit of Gygax, a collection of tables of random magical components with numerical values.

Naturally, the magic-user would need to hunt down the various ingredients in order to make that item (or learn that spell, or whatever). Instant adventure generator.

 

[mmadsen]

Regarding the magic = wonder and mystery thing, it's my belief that practically the only way to really do that is to not allow PC's access to magic using classes or to make magic items. Then the whole magic system can be DM fiat and the players truely will be mystified. As soon as you permit PC access to the study and control of magic, things must be codified into a ruleset the players can peruse.

I think it would fit the D&D paradigm perfectly to make the magic-using classes prestige classes -- either requiring game-mechanic prereqs (like the early Bard), or requiring explicit DM permission after jumping in-game hurdles (like performing a quest for a wizard).

Also, the game's magic system could give sample spells and guidelines but offer more hand-holding for a DM who wants to create more spells (or modify existing spells).

 

[Virel]

Knowing what I know now, what would I go back in time and change to make the D&D of 2005 better?

That's pretty simple... I would go back in time to about 1973 and teach Gary and his business partners a few of the basics regarding the fromation of corporations, the different classifications of stock, especially non-voting stock, the raising of capitol funds, etc. I'd also strongly encourage he and his partners to all get life insurance policies on each other (good advice for anyone forming a business relationship with someone). Then I'd sit back and watch the history of gaming in the 80's happen very differently.

I don't have any proof that would fix the problems I have with D&D 2005, but I strongly suspect it would.

R.A.

I think your right on the mark R.A. I think that would fix the issue.

BTW - as for changes would have allowed demi-humans unlimited progress IF they were single classed in their races favored class. I'd organize it from the start as EGG planned to organize it for what should have been the 2nd ed - Four Core books. All in all I like EGG's 1st ed AD&D the best. My group decided to keep 1st ed AD&D instead of switch to 2nd ed but we did use a few ideas from 2nd ed. Later when 3e appeared, we discussed this again, the decision to keep 1st ed AD&D was again made and we took a few ideas from 3e.

 

[mmadsen]

Just to clarify, this discussion assumes that the three core books (PHB, DMG, MM) of 1st edition represent the "classic" D&D that influenced all that followed.

I would consider the original tiny books (Men & Magic, Monsters & Treasure, Underworld & Wilderness Adventures) more appropriate; they did come first. Of course, many of us grew up on AD&D (or 2E, which wasn't much different) and never played the original, simpler version.

 

[mmadsen]

I'd organize it from the start as EGG planned to organize it for what should have been the 2nd ed - Four Core books.

Four core books?

 

[Aethelstan]

The whole notion that character's gain experience ponits by killing things and taking their stuff is legacy of classic D&D that I think the game would be better off without. 3.5 still tells DMs to do big math problems to figure out XP for PCs. This promotes the idea that killing = leveling. 3.5 does make a nod to roleplaying XP awards but basically the rules tend to encourage a "Diablo" mode of roleplaying (i.e. kill, level, repeat). IMHO, DMs should set out a series of challenges (aka, an adventure) for players and rate them on how well they deal with them. The better PCs do, the faster they level. Bouns to this method: no math.

 

[Aethelstan]

mm, I choose the three hardcover books because they propelled D&D from a small niche to a game with wide appeal. If D&D had remained an odd assortment of little softcovers, we wouldn't be playing it today.

 

[Afrodyte]

Without getting into rules changes and focusing only on the tropes of the game, I'd concentrate more on influences from mythology, folklore, and fairy tales as opposed to fantasy novelists. There'd be less Tolkien, Vance, and Moorecock and more Homer, Chaucer, and Virgil. I don't just mean races and monsters, but the very mood of the game. There'd be more mystery with regards to how the world works, more room for players and DMs to add their own creative spark. Monsters and races, for instance, would be more than a description, picture, and stats. They'd each have a thematic element to it. What does it mean to encounter a dragon, unicorn, or other spectacular creature? What does it mean to include non-human races into the campaign? These are the sorts of things that really add dimension to campaigns, not reams of maps and microscopic details that sometimes hint at a larger idea.

"Adventuring" would be more like questing and less like a way of life. Of course, some quests take a lifetime to complete, but the general idea is that I want to get away from the mercenary standard set in the core rules that masquerades as heroism.

The characters' personal strengths and weaknesses would have as much--if not more-- influence upon his fate as their innate capabilities like Strength, Dexterity, HD, etc. As the rules currently stand, you are more often penalized for thinking outside the wargaming box, even if you create a character known for being courageous, compassionate, wise, or what have you.

The rules would be more like a toolkit than a prerequisite for gaming. This bears some explanation. I realize that some rules are necessary to play the game, but I'd prefer a simple base mechanics with options for more mechanics-intensive play.

 

[TerraDave]

As rogueattorney has alluded to, you are not talking about Classic Dungeons&Dragons, you are talking about Advanced Dungeons and Dragons, and this skews the answer. Many people consider OD&D, or B/E/Rules Cyclopedia D&D to be classic, and they will probably be posting shortly...

Take alignment: it is not clear it was such a big deal, back when it was chaotic vs. lawfull, and I don't know if it ever was in Gygax's own campaigns (he had evil pcs he DMed for, played evil charecters, and his main charecter was neutral).

Or buying and selling magic items: I don't know that this was a "core" part of the game--I think this was put in the DMG because of the XP system. Many campaigns did not allow this.

Now, to try to answer your question: I wish they had been a little more carefull in putting different systems in the game, and thought more about the game as a whole. e.g. the very ad-hoc impact of high or low ability scores (including no impact), different and exclusive systems to listen, different and exclusive ways to sneak, or things like weapon speeds that addressed a problem that did not exist. Or Psionics, or every spell being its own set of rules. I think you get the idea, but it seemed a core tenant of the game back then was that everything had to have its own highly specialised set or rules, or absolutely no rules.

I guess I would want something that was somehow more consistent, but still willing to do zany things and take some risks (and in the early years, that weren't afraid of that)

 

[Davelozzi]

Four core books?

yeah, Virel, please explain. I hadn't heard about this plan and am curious. What was the fourth book?

My guess - a book of magic, separated out from the main PHB.