what makes a game "D&D"?

[Dark Jezter]

I think that would morph it too far. The axes are important for D&D alignment. You could, possibly add a third axis (I don't know what) and get away with it -- just as AD&D added Good/Evil to the existing Law/Chaos axis. You couldn't do much more than that, though.

Again, not that alignment is the best system in the world, but it is D&D.

I thought it was the other way around: AD&D added Law/Chaos to the existing Good/Evil axis.

 

[MerakSpielman]

I thought it was the other way around: AD&D added Law/Chaos to the existing Good/Evil axis.

Nope! OD&D had three alignments: Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic. They weren't really well defined at the time because nobody really cared that much. They described "Good Guys" "Indifferent Guys" and "Bad Guys." Back then we didn't need more than that.

 

[woodelf]

I'm curious what you'd do differently in "D&D Done Right." I think it's curious that you appear to prefer a more 2e feel than a 3e feel, as late 1e turned me off from D&D, 2e did nothing to bring me back to the fold, yet 3e brought me back immediately when it was released. 3e is D&D done right, IMO.

Be that as it may, even "D&D Done Right" still has things that bug me, mostly because they are D&Disms that I'd just as soon do away with. Not only that, they'd probably change from setting to setting.

But it sounds like you have very different ideas.

Well, some of my thoughts (not all of these are translated into mechanics yet, and not all are definites):
--classes that are based on functional roles, rather than archetypes. So things like "barbarian" (which is really a berserker, anyway), bard, paladin, etc., go away, and the basic concepts of warrior, wizard, holy person, etc., are expanded. Probably 6 classes: warrior, spellcaster, faithful, skillmonkey, wilderness guy, and inner strength guy. The problem in my mind is that the current mix of classes covers roles that don't need to be covered (barbarian: just add a raging feat chain; paladin: too campaign-specific), pigeonholes other archetypes strangely (why are rogues all good at sneak attacks, but not all good at stealth?), and just plain misses some character types (there is no skillmonkey character without also being good at sneak attack and evasion; there is no holy character without also being a powerful warrior). By breaking down the class abilities along functionalist lines, lumping together only abilities that inherently go together and providing more choice within class abilities, you can build whatever archetype you want, and aren't stuck with juryrigging, or modifying classes. This *is* more like 2e (with its 4/5 class groups)--or at least the philosophy of 2e, though i'm not sure it was really implemented properly.

--Separate facility with weapons and power with weapons so that the game recognizes the difference (rather than leaving it to flavor text). Thus, you can make the tradeoff between number of attacks, precision of attacks, and power of attacks. A lot of the roots of this system are old houserules based on an optional set of rules for combining&replacing weapon speed and number of attacks that appeared in Dragon in the fairly-early AD&D1 days. I think that the way additional attacks and attack effectiveness have been combined into one beast with iterative attacks in D&D3E undermines the nimble-warrior concept (swashbucklers, martial-artists), inherently favoring the power-attacker as a combat strategy. I don't think this reflects the genre, and i don't think it reflects earlier editions of D&D.

--expand the concepts of domain powers (D&D3E), granted powers (AD&D2), turning undead, and the various paladin abilities to provide a whole class based around such powers. The idea is to (1) give a distinct path for the holy character archetype, rather than just a wizard with a slightly different list of spells and a holy symbol, and (2) expand the viability of that sort of character, finally providing an effective non-warrior (and non-caster) "faithful" archetype in the game. Lots of nifty powers, but not on the spell model.

--Take the brilliant idea of ECL, and actually apply it to the races. That is, given the choice between toning down the various nonhumans so they balance, and sticking to their archetypes which makes them unbalanced, i prefer the latter. But ECL gives you a mathematically-simple way of reintroducing that balance. In AD&D2, i used XP penalties: an elf, say, took a 30% penalty on all earned experience, slowing advancement to compensate for all the kewl powerz. In D&D3E, instead of something like that (i *think* i took it from an old Dragon article, so the idea was floating around out there), or the fairly-bizarre level limits, they chose to redefine the races so they were all equally-powerful. That grates on me, because i think to a certain degree they threw the baby out with the bathwater. And i don't think they succeeded, anyway.

--Something to make races more significant during the life of the character, rather than just a few beginning boons/hindrances, and some interactions later on (like magic item restrictions). I'm not sure what yet--maybe racial levels/classes, maybe something a bit more like the monster classes of Savage Species, maybe sort of use the Heroic Paths model of Midnight (a parallel track of abilities, based on level but not class). I dunno. None of those really satisfies me, but neither have i come up with anything better yet. This one isn't necessarily based on anything concrete in D&D of earlier flavors, just something i think woul be an improvement.

--A "combat" feat category, and a much broader selection of feats than the D&D3E core rules (rather than primarily combat, spellcasting, or item creation).

--Magic item creation that is function-based, rather than form-based. Maybe other changes, but i just haven't figured out a system i'm happy with yet. I don't like XP as the cost, unless you're going to also go the Hero model of guaranteeing that an XP-bought magic item won't be stolen/lost/destroyed. But other cost models have other problems. I really like the spell-slot idea of Artificer's Handbook.

--Alignment: expand the notion of alignment definition a bit. Frex, there was a Dragon article years ago which put forth 7 loyalties: self, family, comrades, deity, homeland, sovereign, race. Each character would order these loyalties in a hierarchy of importance to more-clearly define their alignment. If you were Lawful, you had to recognize all 7 loyalties, and whether you were Good, Neutral, or Evil determined some limits on the order you could give them (frex, a LG character must put self in the last position, but could choose to put deity (paladin), homeland (dwarven defender), or sovereign (knight) in the first position). Neutral and Chaotic characters were required to use fewer of these elements, but instead had to have [personal] "beliefs" to replace the missing loyalties. You could further expand the concept by defining a specific hierarchy of loyalties for certain characters (such as paladins, or druids). Thus, it was clear what made someone "LG", but you could still clearly see how two LG characters could have disagreements within their alignment. I'm not necessarily going to use that system, but i think the basic idea is excellent: much in the same way that the spells [within their schools] and monsters/races have been further defined with descriptors, i think further detail on alignment, but within the basic 9-fold structure, would be an improvement.

--Spellcasting. Probably something pretty similar to what Monte Cook used in AU, since it's almost identical to the house rules i was using 15 years ago: you prepare a number of spells, based on class, level, and abilities, and then can cast a certain number of spells per day from those prepared, but you don't need 1-to-1 correspondence between prepared and cast spells, and you can cast a single prepared spell multiple times.

--Take 10. All the time. On any d20 roll, at any time, you can choose to Take 10. Period. Similarly, the default assumption will be that players make the rolls. Instead of the attack total always benig rolled, a player will roll for attack (unless she wants to Take 10) against the NPC's defense/AC total figured with Take 10, while the player will then roll a defense total vs. the NPC's attack total figured with Take 10. I consider this a basic modernizing element for the ruleset. The GM can always roll for important NPCs if she wants to.

--Write a combat chapter that is clear and well-organized. There is no excuse for the morass of that chapter from a company with the money and talent that WotC has. I'm sure there'll be changes to the combat rules along the way, too--in particular, more maneuvers that are considered "basic" maneuvers anyone can at least attempt, rather than needing a feat for them.

--In general, D&D3E moved in a direction that doesn't appeal to me for D&D: it is much more codified and much more gamist. Game balance is a good thing, but at some point i think you throw the baby out with the bathwater, and i think that D&D3E was treading that line, and D&D3.5E has stepped over it several times. Now, obviously, whatever i do will be bass ackwards for a significant portion of the D&D3(.5)E players. But i sincerely believe that i can do something that is more like "D&D", as it was envisioned across multiple editions and rulesets prior to D&D3E, and that will thus appeal to some people. Much the same way Arcana Unearthed does. Or, in short, i think that D&D3E preserves some elements that should've been "fixed", and misses some sacred cows along the way.

--And then there are a few changes i might make for nostalgia's sake. Frex, i *like* fireballs that have a definite volume. The fact that you don't dare cast it in that small room is a fun dynamic for me. And i've had fun dramatic moments from times when players/spellcasters slightly miscalculated on placing their fireball (such as when trying to target a group of enemies who were fairly close to the PCs).

There are probably lots of other little things, and maybe even a big thing or two that i'm forgetting (i don't have my notes in front of me). The basic idea on my part is that the D&D3E design team did a generally good job (the editing team is another matter) in modernizing D&D, but with some flawed goals. I think making D&D more gamist, and more complex, is contrary to the spirit of D&D. It should be a fun, fast, free-flowing game. And in order to institute rigorous and meaningful balance in a complex game, you have to focus on a specific playstyle, thus D&D3E is more combat-oriented than any previous edition. [n.b.: i'm talking of the rules, not the players.] In fact, i think the second-biggest flaw in D&d3E is not taking ideas far enough. Frex, descriptors for monsters and spells should've been used freely and extensively: they're an awesome idea, and underutilized in the game. And i don't see how making them more frequent would in any way undermine the "D&Dness" of the game [any more than using them infrequently does]. Similarly, i think using the feat and skill systems to build all your character elements (even "class abilities") would improve the game, and that there's no reason not to give the players a lot more feats to play with [and adjust the balance accordingly, of course].

hmmm...not sure i presented my ideas as well as i might've--i seem to be rather tired. Oh well, this message is plenty long enough as is.

 

[jrients]

OD&D(1974) is the only true game. All the other editions are just poor imitations of the real thing.

Maybe if you're a greybearded grognard, but the cool kids play the '81 Basic/Expert rules.

 

[Remathilis]

My personal list of sacred cows...

1.) Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma.
a.) Strength Modifies to hit/dmg, Dex Mod AC, Con Mods Hp, Int mods Lang, Wis Mods saves, Cha mods social skills
b.) Low Score Penalize, High Score give benefits, starting range should be 3-18.
2.) Races
a.) Human, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling
b.) Monsters: goblins, undead, beholders, dragons (chormatic with different breath weapons), orcs, demons (CE), devils (LE), giants, elementals, fey
3.) Classes and Levels
a.) A fighting/warrior type. Strong, all wpns/amor, high hp
b.) A Divine caster. Wise, healing/defense, descent combatant
c.) A Wizard/caster. Intelligent, weak combatant, spell slots.
d.) A Rogue/Skill User. Dexteritous, cunning, masters of stealth and trickery.
4.) Alignment
a.) A Law-Neutral-Chaos Axis, with either a tight or loose Good/Evil axis.
b.) Tangible affects (Detection, Weapons, Class Restriction)
5.) Combat
a.) An Armor Class derrived from Dex, Armor, and Magic
b.) Hit Points defined by class, modified by con.
c.) A To hit modifier dependant on class and level, str modifies melee, dex modifies missile
d.) Weapons that deal different dice of damage.
e.) Saving throws to resist magic, poison, other affects.
6.) Magic
a.) Spell Slots, number tied to level
b.) Spells range in level, higher level spells are better than lower
c.) Spells can be resisted by saving throws
d.) Arcane/Divine Division. Arcane good for changing/movement/attack, Divine good for defense and healing.
e.) Spells effects tied to spell and caster level
f.) Magical Items that improve statitistics (AC, Attack Rolls), or give new effects.

***
These things have not changed from Any edition of D&D, and without them you are not really playing D&D. (Aspects of all have changed by level though, but not their removal)

 

[Greg K]

What makes it DND? My own personal criteria

1) WOTC says it is
2) The logo
3) the use of a d20
4) the six stats
5) class/levels (Personally, I think WOTC handled this poorly for the very reasons pointed out by Woodelf)
6) saving throws
7)the DND version of monsters
8) presence of magic
9) alignment

I could careless about keeping Vancian magic,the AC system, and hit points per level. I have wanted to see these things go almost as long as I have been playing the game.

 

[tetsujin28]

A wizard you meet in a tavern who gives your party a map to a tower that looks like a skull.

 

[Liolel]

A few minor elements that you could probably eliminate but if you do anything to them would be best to just change but are part of D&D are
certain spells: like magic missiles and fireball. Also certain monsters like kobolds, beholders, and gelatinous cubes.

 

[Desdichado]

OK, just out of curiousity again, why do you want it to be D&D per se? I really consider myself, when running games at least, to be more of a d20 player than a D&D player. When I develop campaign settings, I typically throw out 75% of the classes, the entire magic system, alignment, and plenty of other "core" D&D stuff and import something else in from 3rd party publishers. I wouldn't even go so far as to call it D&D, but I also don't see why I would care.

 

[woodelf]

OK, just out of curiousity again, why do you want it to be D&D per se? I really consider myself, when running games at least, to be more of a d20 player than a D&D player. When I develop campaign settings, I typically throw out 75% of the classes, the entire magic system, alignment, and plenty of other "core" D&D stuff and import something else in from 3rd party publishers. I wouldn't even go so far as to call it D&D, but I also don't see why I would care.

Mostly thought exercise, made manifest. I sincerely believe i can do a better job than WotC did in balancing the conflicting goals of a "modern" system and remaining true to the spirit of D&D, so i want to see if i really can--and see if anyone agrees with me. Also, i'm in incurable game designer, so designing a system is fun, not work.

Finally, i'm in need of a non-setting-specific RPG engine for some fantasy settings that i formerly played with AD&D2. Now, in some cases, a completely different system is the best solution (thus Ars Fantasia-- http://www.tiltingatwindmills.net/old/ars/ ). But some of these settings were very much built around D&D, with a lot of the tropes built into the setting in one way or another. The largest part being how spells and psionics work (the latter of which makes D&d3E, as is, incompatible, to boot). I don't *have* to use D20 System for this, but it's the easiest solution, and makes it possible to give the result away without any legal questions (i.e., how much of the AD&D2 spells i can reuse without infringing copyright). And, it so happens that i don't think that D&D3E is a particularly good "generic" fantasy RPG, WoT D20 and Everquest D20 are only slightly better, and only Arcana Unearthed is really good--but it isn't plug-n-play compatible with the typical D&D-built setting, because it's got the wrong elements (races and spells), and it's going just the opposite direction i want to take: more specific, rather than more generic.

So, in my mind, there's a missing niche: while D&D is far and away the most popular system, we all know that lots of people use homebrew worlds and, as you say yourself, that often necessitates significant alterations to make them fit. I think a less-specific D&D could either require less alteration, or have more of those alterations built in as options to lessen the GM's work. Ideally, what you're talking about would, if you were using my system, amount to no more than crossing some feats off of lists (how spells are cast will be strongly controlled by taking feats, rather than built in to the magic system). Of course, it's not likely i'll achieve that goal, but it's still the goal. Don't get me wrong--i know i can't compete with WotC, not really. But i think i *can* do a better job, even if it gets ignored. ;-)