If you were going to expose people to the D&D fantasy genre, and you wanted to show it in all of its glory; what system, edition, setting, options, adventures, etc. would you run?
Quote from: Razor 007;1142150If you were going to expose people to the D&D fantasy genre, and you wanted to show it in all of its glory; what system, edition, setting, options, adventures, etc. would you run?
The system I'm writing; because if I didn't believe it was the best possible system why the heck would I be spending all this time actually writing and testing it.
I don't know about best, but for people that haven't seen it all, a dungeon using the Basic/Expert sets with lots of character deaths would be difficult to top. It's not perfect, but it straight-forward to run and to understand, while getting to the core of the experience as rapidly as possible.
I did this with my son as his intro to RPGs. After some experimentation we settled on Mentzer Basic-Expert DnD; I used the Grand Duchy of Karameikos, a high fantasy tone (PC started as an M-U 4 riding a white dragon!), and a bunch of Basic Fantasy RPG adventures, as well as The Isle of Dread. Campaign ran for around 4 years with more players joining later. I screwed up re a couple of those players, but the basic idea was very sound.
3rd edition, cuz that's the one all the grognards hate, with all the bells and whistles right out of the gate: options everywhere! And extra feats to get even more options! Multi-classing mandatory--but only good multi-class combinations to get the most power-builds possible! With all humanoid races available as PCs. No humans allowed! Drow-Tiefling/Vampire Cyborgs welcome!
In all fairness I don't even know WTF the most "pure" D&D fantasy genre experience is. I know I hated Basic D&D when I was introduced into the hobby and that most people who seem to think they know what the purest form of D&D is love it, so depending on what people mean by it, I may not really care about "pure" D&D fantasy. I also don't like any classic D&D fantasy settings other than Dragonlance, which I don't necessarily consider the "purest" form of D&D. I only like Dark Sun, Planescape and Spelljammer (and maybe Ravenloft, with some reservations), which are non-standard fantasy. I also like Mystara, though, so maybe that setting is "pure" D&D fantasy.
I wasn't being entirely sarcastic about 3rd edition, though. Despite all its flaws (and there are many) I still tend to think of it as the best edition of D&D ever made, at least in concept, though, the implementation sucks! I would revamp feats and make them useful, reduce "feat taxes" and eliminate feat requirements to attempt most actions. And I would place a level cap on skills (around 10 ranks or so) to mitigate the arms race to constantly max out skills and force characters to diversify. And also eliminate "class skills" to simplify skill progression, and perhaps replace it with a flat bonus (+2 perhaps) to class-related skills, but max skill ranks would be Level +2, max 10 (class bonus doesn't count towards max).
I would also make caster levels a universal feature all classes contribute to (kinda like BABs) to make multi-classed spell-casters more viable (levels in caster classes would still be necessary to access spell lists), but also improve non-caster classes to make them more viable compared to casters.
But, would that be "pure" D&D? IDK, probably not. But it'd be better than Basic. :p
So in summary*:
- Modified version of 3e
- Dark Sun, city of Tyr
- Everyone starts out with multiple characters at the arena fighting for their lives!
- Characters who survive get to be PCs
- King Kalak dies at the end and PCs get to run away to their freedom in the chaos and start out their adventures surviving in an unforgiving desert world.
*yeah, I didn't cover most of this in the post, but... long post :D
Dark Sun!!!
Dark Passages!
I would take the OSE Rules Tome and run B2 The Keep on the Borderlands. After that it's all custom campaign content.
Holmes or Moldvay Basic edition, with B1 or B2 module.
What's odd is I remember Holmes the most, and B2 the most. But B2 came with Moldvay and not Holmes, so I don't know why my memory tells me it was Holmes (blue cover) played with B2. Maybe that's just how we did it anyway? Though I remember B1 as well, and own both. I just thought I bought B1 separately later.
Edit - Ah, I see. It WAS B2 with Holmes. "printings six through eleven (1979–1982) featured the module B2 The Keep on the Borderlands instead". 1979 is about right.
And now I think I need to dig through my collection and read through Holmes Basic again. Boy did I play the crap out of that game when I was young.
Quote from: Mistwell;1142192Holmes or Moldvay Basic edition, with B1 or B2 module.
What's odd is I remember Holmes the most, and B2 the most. But B2 came with Moldvay and not Holmes, so I don't know why my memory tells me it was Holmes (blue cover) played with B2. Maybe that's just how we did it anyway? Though I remember B1 as well, and own both. I just thought I bought B1 separately later.
Edit - Ah, I see. It WAS B2 with Holmes. "printings six through eleven (1979–1982) featured the module B2 The Keep on the Borderlands instead". 1979 is about right.
And now I think I need to dig through my collection and read through Holmes Basic again. Boy did I play the crap out of that game when I was young.
I agree with this, but I'd use Mentzer because Red Box was my first game.
Quote from: Razor 007;1142150If you were going to expose people to the D&D fantasy genre, and you wanted to show it in all of its glory; what system, edition, setting, options, adventures, etc. would you run?
The fanciest looking 20-sided die is the setting. That's all most D&D players are interested in.
System: my modified Swords & Wizardry: White Box rules.
Setting: a homebrew
Adventures: short arc campaign with plenty of dungeoncrawls.
I never burden new players with rules.
I want them to get into the roleplaying ASAP.
And showcase the coolest part of being the DM is the freedom of creation and imagination.
I think it'd be Greyhawk and 1e. Mostly because it was sloppily defined, sandbox as hell, but had iconic things like Vecna, devils, demons, assassins, bards, paladins, druids, deck or many things and so on. It sort of really first defined a lot of what became standard D&D later.
I'd run 1e AD&D (and probably use Greyhawk). To me, that's the de facto standard for "this is Dungeons & Dragons."
Quote from: Spinachcat;1142210System: my modified Swords & Wizardry: White Box rules.
Setting: a homebrew
Adventures: short arc campaign with plenty of dungeoncrawls.
I never burden new players with rules.
I want them to get into the roleplaying ASAP.
And showcase the coolest part of being the DM is the freedom of creation and imagination.
I'm in this camp as well! And I love the OP's question, because it's verily the primary goal of my own homebrew rules -- all the essence, tropes, etc. of the canonical "D&D experience" distilled into super-simple game rules and fast character creation. About the same level of complexity and detail as S&W, plus a bit more uniformity a la B/X.
Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;1142225I'd run 1e AD&D (and probably use Greyhawk). To me, that's the de facto standard for "this is Dungeons & Dragons."
Sounds about right.
Savage Worlds SWADE Edition+ Greybox Forgotten Realms for the setting.
If you're going to force me to use a D&D edition... I'll go 2e with Greybox Realms
Spells, magic items, and monsters from AD&D 1E.
Classes are only Fighters, Clerics, and Magic-Users from OD&D. Paladins, Druids, Bards, Elves, and other hybrids are all based on the OD&D Cleric. Rangers, Barbarians, Thieves, etc. are simply Fighters with less armor.
Combat is AD&D 2E hit, save, and spell charts, ONLY.
Setting and fluff is MIUAYG, or "make-it-up-as-you-go."
No initiative, just surprise checks. Everyone gets one attack or one spell per round. Instead of attacking or casting, you can optionally run away, if possible.
No XP. PC's level-up after winning a number of "meaningful" encounters equal to the level they are trying to attain. Running away isn't winning. Opponents must always be of equal or superior strength to qualify as "meaningful." Strength is measured strictly by HD/HP/Level.
That's it.
Quote from: Kael;1142360Spells, magic items, and monsters from AD&D 1E.
Classes are only Fighters, Clerics, and Magic-Users from OD&D. Paladins, Druids, Bards, Elves, and other hybrids are all based on the OD&D Cleric. Rangers, Barbarians, Thieves, etc. are simply Fighters with less armor.
Combat is AD&D 2E hit, save, and spell charts, ONLY.
Setting and fluff is MIUAYG, or "make-it-up-as-you-go."
No initiative, just surprise checks. Everyone gets one attack or one spell per round. Instead of attacking or casting, you can optionally run away, if possible.
No XP. PC's level-up after winning a number of "meaningful" encounters equal to the level they are trying to attain. Running away isn't winning. Opponents must always be of equal or superior strength to qualify as "meaningful." Strength is measured strictly by HD/HP/Level.
That's it.
How would you handle Thief skills, for a sneaky fighter with less armor? In OD&D, I believe it was d6 Roll Low. That seems super simple, to me.
Quote from: Razor 007;1142378How would you handle Thief skills, for a sneaky fighter with less armor? In OD&D, I believe it was d6 Roll Low. That seems super simple, to me.
You nailed it, basically. Non-thieves roll skill checks with a base 2-in-6 chance. Thieves double it with a 4-in-6 chance, mimicking the race bonuses. If you want something more "official" just use the Hear Noise check for all skills. It already has a Gygaxian d6 Thief skill progression ready-to-go. Just use that for everything kinda like a S&W-style single save.
Or, you could give them a progression like...
Level 1-4: 3 in 6
Level 5-8: 4 in 6
Level 9+: 5 in 6
Or, everyone gets a skill progression of...
Level 1-4: 2 in 6
Level 5-8: 3 in 6
Level 9+: 4 in 6
While wearing leather armor or less, you get a +1 to the above.
Essentially, you are trading armor class for a small skill check bonus. And in reality, doing anything sneaky should be easier without plate or chain armor, so it makes sense without being fiddly. To me, Thieves/Rogues should not be another class. A Thief is just a Fighter wearing leather armor. Anyone choosing to wear leather (or no) armor is awarded certain perks.
But, in the spirit of OD&D, I'd just say something like, "if you're going on a stealth mission, or if you want to be sneaky overall, I'd suggest you wear leather armor or less or your life will be very difficult." No extra rules needed.
Quote from: Kael;1142394You nailed it, basically. Non-thieves roll skill checks with a base 2-in-6 chance. Thieves double it with a 4-in-6 chance, mimicking the race bonuses. If you want something more "official" just use the Hear Noise check for all skills. It already has a Gygaxian d6 Thief skill progression ready-to-go. Just use that for everything kinda like a S&W-style single save.
Or, you could give them a progression like...
Level 1-4: 3 in 6
Level 5-8: 4 in 6
Level 9+: 5 in 6
Or, everyone gets a skill progression of...
Level 1-4: 2 in 6
Level 5-8: 3 in 6
Level 9+: 4 in 6
While wearing leather armor or less, you get a +1 to the above.
Essentially, you are trading armor class for a small skill check bonus. And in reality, doing anything sneaky should be easier without plate or chain armor, so it makes sense without being fiddly. To me, Thieves/Rogues should not be another class. A Thief is just a Fighter wearing leather armor. Anyone choosing to wear leather (or no) armor is awarded certain perks.
But, in the spirit of OD&D, I'd just say something like, "if you're going on a stealth mission, or if you want to be sneaky overall, I'd suggest you wear leather armor or less or your life will be very difficult." No extra rules needed.
I love the simple spirit of OD&D.
Quote from: VisionStorm;1142162I wasn't being entirely sarcastic about 3rd edition, though. Despite all its flaws (and there are many) I still tend to think of it as the best edition of D&D ever made, at least in concept, though, the implementation sucks! I would...
Agree on 3E. Once you strip away the excesses (mostly prcs and 3PP) it's a solid game. My ideal is E6. You're on the right track with your fixes:
- reduce "feat taxes" (yes)
- eliminate feat requirements (yes)
- level cap on skills, around 10 ranks or so (maybe)
- eliminate "class skills" (yes)
- replace it with a +2 bonus (maybe)
- caster levels a universal feature all classes contribute to, kinda like BABs (not sure)
I would also:
- combine some of the 3.5 skills (H + MS = stealth, etc.)
- nerf druids
- ditch monks
- ditch prcs
- ditch confirming crits
- use vp/wp
Have you ever seen Trailblazer? It attempts to fix 3.5's problems.
Quote from: Aglondir;1142713Agree on 3E. Once you strip away the excesses (mostly prcs and 3PP) it's a solid game. My ideal is E6. You're on the right track with your fixes:
- reduce "feat taxes" (yes)
- eliminate feat requirements (yes)
- level cap on skills, around 10 ranks or so (maybe)
- eliminate "class skills" (yes)
- replace it with a +2 bonus (maybe)
- caster levels a universal feature all classes contribute to, kinda like BABs (not sure)
I would also:
- combine some of the 3.5 skills (H + MS = stealth, etc.)
- nerf druids
- ditch monks
- ditch prcs
- ditch confirming crits
- use vp/wp
Have you ever seen Trailblazer? It attempts to fix 3.5's problems.
That honestly kinda just sounds like Pathfinder 2e.
Quote from: ZetaRidley;1143478That honestly kinda just sounds like Pathfinder 2e.
No, he didn't mention adding paragraphs of apologies to cater the game to special snowflakes.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1142210I never burden new players with rules. I want them to get into the roleplaying ASAP.
I think this is the key. If you want to showcase the game you really don't want to spend a half hour creating characters, which is where 5E falls down. Even with pregens, you have to spend a lot of time explaining stuff.
I think that I would either go with OD&D or Moldvay/Cook B/X. Simple rules, no skills or funky extras to confuse a player. You have a race and/or class and a few stats and you start them off. I've heard great things about B1 and B2, but I've never actually played or run either so I would probably go with something different. Probably a homebrew dungeon full of some puzzles and traps and monsters to kill.
Quote from: ZetaRidley;1143478That honestly kinda just sounds like Pathfinder 2e.
or ditch PF2... and just mosey over to the Thunderdome thread and behold Fantasy Craft for the apotheosis of 3e design.
Quote from: Razor 007;1143479No, he didn't mention adding paragraphs of apologies to cater the game to special snowflakes.
DnD has always been about special snowflakes since the first time someone wanted to talk about their character.
When I introduce noobs to D&D on Roll20 (it's been awhile, since covid-19), I use my own Crimson Dragon Slayer D20. It's what I envision D&D to be if I'm trying to download the purest form of basic, old-school (with a modern advance or two) fantasy roleplaying into a stranger's brain. Few, but meaningful choices. A couple bells and whistles, nothing distracting. It's not geared for lengthy campaigns... one-shots and shorter campaigns are ideal. And it's FREE!
VS
System: AD&D 2E (my favorite edition of the game). Castles & Crusades or Old-School Essentials would also be acceptable.
World: Greybox Forgotten Realms.
Quote from: Razor 007;1142150If you were going to expose people to the D&D fantasy genre, and you wanted to show it in all of its glory; what system, edition, setting, options, adventures, etc. would you run?
Rules cyclopedia, with Mystara.