What elements of these novels would you use to craft a system?
That's a tricky one, especially since I'd be inclined to draw inspiration from sources other than just novels. But I'll give it a go...
By and large, I'm generally of the view that the game is stronger if,
at low levels, the fantasy is strongly rooted in reality. Thus, I would target the approximate power level of 1st level characters at about the Black Company - they're an elite mercenary unit, clearly a cut above the norm, but they're certainly not superhuman.
(This would be a step back in power from 4e, or even 3e. Although I'd probably leave the higher hit point total of 4e alone, as a concession to fun over 'realism'.)
Another thing that I think the game should probably cater for is classes of different complexity, to suit different players. In older editions, the model was "Fighters simple, Wizards complex", but I feel that was rather limiting. Instead, I think the game should try to have a 'simple', 'medium' and 'complex' expression of each archetype.
So, from Harry Potter, I would introduce an "Academy Mage" class, with a mostly-fixed spell list. (Possibly with a number of specialisms, like the Beguiler, Warmage or Dread Necromancer of 3e.) This would represent the formally-trained arcanist. The Wizard would be the 'complex' version of the class, being the guy who was trained one-on-one by a mentor, and there would also be a Wilder/Sorcerer class that was the 'medium' version, being the guy who is self-taught.
Another important lesson from Harry Potter: this is a
fantasy game, so needs to include fantastic elements!
From the Black Company, Cornwell's books, and David Gemmell's Troy trilogy would come rules for mass-combats and, in particular, mounted and vehicular combat. These have typically been given short shrift in D&D, especially since 3e, but I think that is to the game's detriment. Essentially, at Heroic levels, PCs should be able to be part of the shield wall; at Paragon levels, they lead the shield wall; at Epic levels, they lead empires to war!
From Pratchett, Pullman, Gaiman and Bas-Lag (how could I forget that?) is a reminder that there's more to fantasy than just endless 'quest' adventures. So, things like the Dragonborn, Warforged and Shardminds all have a place, but also there is a place for odd and unexplained quirks in fantasy, legends that are hidden out of the way but still powerful, and out-and-out whimsy. Not all the time, of course, but sometimes. (Funny how the only things we would
dream of taking from Wonderland are the vorpal sword and the Jabberwock.)
I think the game would also be better served by drawing a
much clearer line between the tiers. In terms of mechanics, there's not that much between 10th level and 11th, but thematically maybe there should be.
I quite like the notion that moving between the tiers is a matter of
choice - you cannot simply level from 10th to 11th by gaining enough experience points; you have to dedicate yourself to
something.
We see the move to 1st level in the movie of Fellowship of the Ring with Sam ("This is it. If I take one more step, it's the furthest I've ever been from home."), in Star Wars with Luke ("I want to learn the ways of the Force and become a Jedi like my father"), and in the Matrix where Neo takes the Red pill.
We see the move to the Paragon tier where Strider allows himself to be revealed as Aragorn, or where Gandalf faces the Balrog; in Empire Strikes Back when Luke leaves Yoda to go to Cloud City, and again in the Matrix when Neo gets up after being shot.
And the move to Epic can be seen in Return of the Jedi ("You've failed Your Highness. I am a Jedi, like my father before me."); in 300 when Leonidas must choose to take his army to face the invaders; in Matrix Revolutions ("Why keep fighting?", "Because I choose to."); and in Troy where Achillies is told that he can stay and live and be forgotten, or he can go to fight at Troy, where he will die, but be remembered forever.
(I think the concept of Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies is genius. But I think it could be invested with a bit more significance. And of course, you can dispute any or all of these choices; they're really just for illustration.)
Incidentally, I think that adopting a clear and stated division in the tiers would also help WotC in developing their adventures. If they clearly state something like "At 1st level, PCs hide from dragons; at 11th level, PCs fight dragons; at 21st level, PCs ride dragons" that should give them something to keep in mind when creating these things. It
might just be enough to make the difference between adventures that feel properly epic, versus "here's a collection of encounters suitable to 21st level PCs". Maybe.
One other thing occurs to me from reading the various works, which is that out-and-out monsters appear to be quite rare, such that meeting one is a
big thing. In "Lord of the Rings", there are plenty of orcs and a number of trolls (cave or otherwise), but outright monsters are rare and scary: Smaug, Shelob, nine Nazgul... Likewise, Conan generally met
a monster in the course of one of his adventures, and otherwise fought men or degenerate humanoids. And, of course, Dracula and Frankenstein are unique monsters.
I think that may be something D&D could strive for more: if we're dealing with a five-room lair for a night's adventure, stick to fairly 'standard' creatures for the most part, but throw in
one monster at the end... and really go all out with that one creature. For larger adventures, tend towards recurring creatures that tangle with the PCs several times (as in the original Ravenloft).
Would you take the mercanary company and non-divine medic (Croaker) from Black Company?
You know, I hadn't even considered this!
One thing that is quite noticable is that, outside of D&D fiction, there really isn't any concept of the "healer priest". You get warrior-priests (Bishop Turpin), you get mystic-priests (Gemmell's Source), you get exorcist-priests (Hammer horror), but there really doesn't seem to be anything akin to D&D's Cleric.
I think I'd be inclined to expand mundane healing and add in Arcane healing (and potentially Psionic healing), so that healing becomes something that
any character can do. This then instantly removes the need for someone to grudgingly say, "I guess I'll play the Cleric then". (For 4e, insert Leader).
From there, I'd probably split the Cleric class into the three archetypes as above (and, actually, merge the warrior-priest with the Paladin; although I'd call the resulting class the Cleric, and eliminate the
Paladin).
Oh, and a stylistic thing that is potentially minor, but maybe not: I would remove the word 'god' from the rulebooks entirely. Call them 'Powers' (hmm, maybe not
), and have the game support all sorts of Power - from the Small Gods of Pratchett and Roman mythology, through to the 'gods' fought by Conan, through to the archdemons fought by Elric and the gods who fought in the Trojan War, through to the untouchable overgod of Forgotten Realms (AO?).
The problem with using the word 'god' for D&D deities is that it carries a whole lot of real-world baggage with it, such that we get all sorts of arguments about whether PCs should be able to kill gods, at what level this should be done, and so on. An adjustment in the terminology here may well help, especially if the game is going to support both Issek of the Jug and Cyric the Mad at the same time.
