Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1132583On the other hand, try learning the game from a 1E PHB and 2E DMG and MC. It's a wonder we stuck with it long enough to get a 2E PHB.

  Nothing against either 1E or 2E, but of the four combinations of core books to start with, 1E PHB/2E DMG is probably the one that loses the most.

I learned from a 1e PHB. What's the problem? (Note that I own almost 0 2e, except for some rando splatbooks I picked up suuuuuuper cheap used when I first started playing.)

Guess it depends it one ever planned on running it or remaining a player.  Running with that combo would have been sub-optimal as rules would have been mashed together.
Sounds like a bunch of young players pooling together their resources at the time thinking:  We've got the PHB and DMG of D&D so we're good yay!  Good luck to them.
I remember confusing my parents with specifics on which version of what Santa MUST get for Christmas.  Honestly, my young brain could not make sense of the Gygaxian 1e rule conflicts at the time (still doesn't) and we just used B/X rules mashed in like most players we know did.  Looking back on it now I'm sure the gaping holes in logic were cavernous.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1132572Stars Without Number Revised effectively?

IDK, from what I've seen SWN seems to be a mishmash of old D&D saving throws, super low ability score modifiers with 2d6 for skill rolls and semi-flexible classes.

TL;DR: I would stick with D&D ability scores & core task resolution mechanics, rather than do something like SWN.

Long & Rambling:

If I was gonna rebuild D&D as a skill-based game I'd stick with the current ability score scheme and use 1d20+Mod vs DC for everything, then establish a maximum skill level (maybe 10) and cost for improving ability scores and skills, and purchasing feats.

I'm not sure I'd use character levels, but if I did, you'd just get X amount of build points per level to spend however you want, but max skill would be tied to level to certain extent (maybe 4 +1/2nd level, to a max of 10) and some feats may have minimum level requirements. Ability costs would vary depending on how powerful feats are, but might be something like: Ability Scores (3 per +1), Skill (1 per Level) and Feats (3 each). Build Points per level would vary depending on how general skills are and how many; maybe 5 per level or something like that. Starting skills and feats might be based on Class and Background selections as starting ability packages for flavor, but have absolutely zero impact on progression.

I'm not sure I'd use Hit Dice, cuz I absolutely abhor everything about them. I hate random HP and blame ever increasing HD for power creep and everything that's wrong with D&D and video game RPGs, which almost invariably copy the ever increasing HP formula till characters become ridiculous bags of HP. BUT I may need them if I want to port 5e's damage ranges for spells and such, otherwise I'd have to build my own from scratch and the game won't be compatible with existing D&D.

If I did use HD, I'd probably stick to 1d6, maybe 1d8 as a universal HD for everyone (including monsters), assuming I'm keeping 5e ranges for damage. And I would include a feat that adds bonus HP per HD. Alternatively I could use fixed HP, giving characters a significant amount of starting HP, plus a meager amount per level to avoid power creep (but that may mess with me porting 5e's damage ranges, since 5e spells do ridiculous amounts at high levels).

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1132572But yeah I don't like 5e either. Any issues previous editions had, 5e solved by simply not having the framework for the issue to exist. All issues were solved by amputation. And I find 5e, while more playable then 4e, the least ambitious edition of them all.
It was half-finished and rushed to market, but the stars aligned and it sounded enough like D&D to get people to play it.

I pretty much agree with all of this and loved the "solved by amputation" analogy

Though, I think that part of what helped 5e is that it's simple enough to get the noobs started easily and task resolution is so centralized (with everything, including attacks, saves and skills, being a Proficiency) anyone can get it. Which IMO is a testament to the superiority of skill-based mechanics. :cool:

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1132583On the other hand, try learning the game from a 1E PHB and 2E DMG and MC. It's a wonder we stuck with it long enough to get a 2E PHB.

  Nothing against either 1E or 2E, but of the four combinations of core books to start with, 1E PHB/2E DMG is probably the one that loses the most.

Yeah. You need the 1e DMG. Everyone needs the 1e DMG. It is the Tome of All RPG.

I suspect the "50th Anniversary Edition" will be a 5.5e, not a true 6e...and it will be slathered in a shitfest of woke nonsense.

I doubt WotC will risk losing the 5e audience by trying anything fresh and new.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1132625I suspect the "50th Anniversary Edition" will be a 5.5e, not a true 6e...and it will be slathered in a shitfest of woke nonsense.

I doubt WotC will risk losing the 5e audience by trying anything fresh and new.

The illustrations for each of the playable character "Races", could be interesting......  Will they still show Males and Females?

Quote from: Razor 007;1132631The illustrations for each of the playable character "Races", could be interesting......  Will they still show Males and Females?

Probably, but judging by Paizo et al it'll be Ancestry or Heritage not Race.

Quote from: S'mon;1132637Probably, but judging by Paizo et al it'll be Ancestry or Heritage not Race.

"A rose by any other name..."

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1132666"A rose by any other name..."

...is a Species!

Seriously, though, SJWisms aside, I sometimes wonder about the accuracy of the term "race" when when talking about things that might not even be biological, depending on what types of "races" might be available in a game or setting, like Warforged, which are constructs and therefore not a "race", or a Species or Ancestry for that matter. I've been using "class" (short for "classification") for my own universal system, as in "what type of being are you classified as?" Which I think covers constructs, undead, mutants, etc., in addition to "races" or species.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1132667...is a Species!

Seriously, though, SJWisms aside, I sometimes wonder about the accuracy of the term "race" when when talking about things that might not even be biological, depending on what types of "races" might be available in a game or setting, like Warforged, which are constructs and therefore not a "race", or a Species or Ancestry for that matter. I've been using "class" (short for "classification") for my own universal system, as in "what type of being are you classified as?" Which I think covers constructs, undead, mutants, etc., in addition to "races" or species.

I prefer Species, but you're correct, it doesn't cover constructs, but then again I don't allow Special Snowflake PCs. It might present a problem for Sci-Fi IF the game allows for Androids or Robots as PCs.

But who says you have to have only one class of beings? Species for the biological ones and Constructs, for the non-biological ones. This only presents a problem if you think about Elementals...

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1132668I prefer Species, but you're correct, it doesn't cover constructs, but then again I don't allow Special Snowflake PCs. It might present a problem for Sci-Fi IF the game allows for Androids or Robots as PCs.

But who says you have to have only one class of beings? Species for the biological ones and Constructs, for the non-biological ones. This only presents a problem if you think about Elementals...

I like snowflake PCs (sometimes), but it depends on the type of setting and what the campaign is about. Sometimes it might not even make sense to reference it at all. If all characters must be human, for example, like in the case of Cyberpunk 2020, then "race" becomes irrelevant. But if you're playing a sci-fi game that includes androids as PCs, like you point out, then neither Species nor Race works as a term to refer to that aspect of your character that define "what" they are.

And classes of being can be pretty extensive, including biological species/races, magical constructs (golems), mechanical constructs (robots), elementals, undead, spirits, or what they call "Outsiders" in D&D (angels, demons, etc.). But none of these categories really work as a label to include in your character sheet to refer to "what" your character is. I even wonder if traditional D&D "races" really qualify as races or species. Though, I suppose some connotations or uses of the word "race" could technically apply to any generic group of people.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1132686I like snowflake PCs (sometimes), but it depends on the type of setting and what the campaign is about. Sometimes it might not even make sense to reference it at all. If all characters must be human, for example, like in the case of Cyberpunk 2020, then "race" becomes irrelevant. But if you're playing a sci-fi game that includes androids as PCs, like you point out, then neither Species nor Race works as a term to refer to that aspect of your character that define "what" they are.

And classes of being can be pretty extensive, including biological species/races, magical constructs (golems), mechanical constructs (robots), elementals, undead, spirits, or what they call "Outsiders" in D&D (angels, demons, etc.). But none of these categories really work as a label to include in your character sheet to refer to "what" your character is. I even wonder if traditional D&D "races" really qualify as races or species. Though, I suppose some connotations or uses of the word "race" could technically apply to any generic group of people.

Then make it Beings?

If it's not human it's not people per the definition.

Alignment will be replaced with "orientation," which will be simply a keyword to be triggered through roleplay to award inspiration. Lawful, chaotic, trustworthy, pansexual, nihilist, ticklish, whatever the player wants.

Not gonna lie, chaotic ticklish sounds like an awesome alignment to explore. :cool:

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1132693Then make it Beings?

"Being" doesn't really work as a label for that space in your character sheet where you write what your character is the way that "Race:__________",  "Species:__________" or  "Class:__________" do.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1132693If it's not human it's not people per the definition.

It depends on the sense you're using for the definition of the word "person", which has multiple meanings. In philosophy, a "person" is a self-conscious rational being, which could hypothetically include self-aware non-humans capable of some degree of rational thought. An elf or a true AI is technically a "person". Therefore they are people. Which makes me wonder if "race" could accurately apply to stuff like vampires or robots, since one meaning of the word race includes "any group, class or kind, especially of persons". At least according to Dictionary.com.