Rebuild 1E...

[Remathilis]

I left out "as a jumping off point for something like AD&D". I want the options of AD&D without the cruft. So starting from RC and adding complexity (cruft I like) might work better than starting from AD&D and decrufting it.

BF lacks the added cruft I like. Arguably BF is all you need, I know. But I'd like some of the "advanced" bits thrown in as well. But, that's a different thread.

Well, since you put it THAT way...

Start with BF.
Add Gnome, Half-Elf, Half-Orc and Half-Ogre races. Allow a bit more Multi-classing options than F/Mu (I'd like F/Th, Mu/Thf as well).
Add a Ranger, Paladin, Druid, Illusionist, Bard, Monk, and Assassin class.
Add 7th-9th level Mu Spells, 7th level Cleric Spells. Fluff out both lists.
Allow Clerics spells at first level.
Give magic-users a bonus spell per plus of Int (13-15 1st level, 16-17 2nd, 18 3rd). Give thieves bonus to PP, OL, RT, MS, and Hd based on Dex plus (+1=5%).
Give races bonuses to thief skills. Allow Backstab multiplier to increase with level.
Add a simple skill system to the game, something a cross between secondary skills and non-weapon proficiencies.
Allow Fighters something akin to weapon-specialization.
Expand the Monster's Section to include a LOT more monsters, including more complex ones like liches, demons, and such.
Give monsters some additional info (Int, Alignment)
Add a lot of magic-items, I actually would borrow 3e's "plused" system (flaming = +1, etc) but not assign costs to items.
Add some additional situational bonuses (higher ground, flanking) to combat, allow some simple fighter combat options (dual-wielding, parry, smash, disarm, grapple, trip, etc).
Add back the 9 alignments.

You can go further if you want (adding back 1e racial traits, for example) but honestly I could run for YEARS off something this simple.

 

[Baron Opal]

Again there is a certain C&C quality to this. In the 1e stat order: str, int, wis, dex, con, cha, your list would be as you listed it: Ftr, Mu, Clr, Thf, Mnk, Brd.

Well, that order was not entirely by accident. It is interesting that you mention it ressembles C&C as I don't have any of the books.

I thought the d20 modern game was kind of silly, smart hero, strong hero &c. But, as I was looking over the RC and deciding how I was going to adapt it, I thought that having a class that typified each attribute would be elegant. Fighters were obviously tied to strength, magic-users to intelligence, &c. Thinking about charisma the bard was the obvious choice. Constitution was difficult, but then I thought of monks and it clicked. I rewrote them, however, to make them more like Bannor than Wong Fei.

 

[Greg K]

I think 1E breaks down above 12th level, or so, because DM's and groups were not willing to acknowledge that the game was now a fantasy super heroes game. When I accepted wild and crazy as the norm I was able to run games into the low 20's..

Many of us acknowledged that it became fantasy superheroes, but it wasn't what we wanted.

 

[jmucchiello]

Add a simple skill system to the game, something a cross between secondary skills and non-weapon proficiencies.

I didn't touch on this before. I like the NWP concept without the "skill check" part. Using NWPs as secondary skills makes a lot more sense. Essentially the NWPs become "mini-classes" that provide "Stuff I can do atypical of my primary class". Does a wizard know about the abyss? Of course, make an int to see how much this particular wizard knows. Does a fighter know about raising cows? Maybe. If he took the Farmer SS or NWP, of course he does.

What I don't want is "adventurers" rolling dice to see how many arrows they can make using their craft skills.

 

[evildmguy]

Well, that order was not entirely by accident. It is interesting that you mention it ressembles C&C as I don't have any of the books.

I thought the d20 modern game was kind of silly, smart hero, strong hero &c. But, as I was looking over the RC and deciding how I was going to adapt it, I thought that having a class that typified each attribute would be elegant. Fighters were obviously tied to strength, magic-users to intelligence, &c. Thinking about charisma the bard was the obvious choice. Constitution was difficult, but then I thought of monks and it clicked. I rewrote them, however, to make them more like Bannor than Wong Fei.

Actually, d20 Modern is silly. I tried to use it for a (d20 future) game and couldn't get past those names. The problem is that "fighter" tells you something about the class. "Strong" does not. So, I like the mechanic but the names they used for the classes needs to be more evocative. At least for me.

Of course, that can go too far, look at Exalted's names for Charms which get too silly or weird for me. But, maybe that's the subjective part.

I like the idea of NWPs as Secondary Skills but do think there needs to be some guidelines. I agree that I don't want an adventurer to roll to see how many arrows they made. Or how many were mastercraft, or some other type, that must be tracked differently than "arrow."

I wish that I had had this kind of advice back in the 80s! If someone here realized back then that high level DND was a super hero game, kudos to them! I sure didn't and would love to have had this advice (and resources) back then! Part of why I have found this discussion so interesting is because in breaking down what something does, such as saves by class being more important than then the DCs of 3.x, it really explains 1E more to me and gives me insights on how to look at other game systems.

edg

 

[Treebore]

Many of us acknowledged that it became fantasy superheroes, but it wasn't what we wanted.

Well, apparently that is what a lot of people wanted, my players loved it, and judging by the games created in the last 10 years, fantasy super heroes is very popular.

 

[Treebore]

Well, that order was not entirely by accident. It is interesting that you mention it ressembles C&C as I don't have any of the books.
.

Well, its only very superficial, besides it isn't like C&C is the first game to ever associate those classes with those attributes. In fact I think that association has been made since day one of D&D, and as soon as the other classes arrived on the scene. Now if you had also mentioned Druid, Illusionist, Barbarian, Knight, and Paladin then I might have wondered if you had been looking at C&C.

Plus C&C having "primes" is not exactly original either, just how Primes are used is.

 

[mmadsen]

Int makes much more sense than Dex for initiative. Intelligence is taking in data, processing it and spitting out decisions.

Arguably issues of initiative and reflexes should be based on a perception stat rather than an agility stat. Warriors and athletes should have both, of course, but they are different traits -- and they're not the same as intelligence in the abstract reasoning sense. Absent-minded professors don't necessarily make great fighter pilots.

Fitting this into D&D would be awkward, since D&D conflates willpower and perception into one wisdom stat associated with piety.

 

[snowitch]

It would be an interesting exercise, rather than focus on our favorite memories of 1E, to emphasize the bizarre or frustrating elements. It would be flavorful and fun to play an old school game that relied heavily on racial level limits, weapon vs. armor type, random monster tables, and the Fiend Folio, but streamlined and balanced with some of the rules of today. Just a thought...

 

[Aus_Snow]

It would be an interesting exercise, rather than focus on our favorite memories of 1E, to emphasize the bizarre or frustrating elements. It would be flavorful and fun to play an old school game that relied heavily on racial level limits, weapon vs. armor type, random monster tables, and the Fiend Folio

Yeah!

, but streamlined and balanced with some of the rules of today. Just a thought...

. . .

*sigh* Oh, ya big tease.