This is a very very rough outline of "My" D&D--it needs a lot of work, and its very basic and simple on purpose. Link

Quote from: Narf the Mouse;366891So: What's your D&D? Be as brief or as lengthy as you wish.

I'd reintroduce the Basic/Advanced Dungeons and Dragons split that existed in the late-1970s and 1980s.  I'd model the Basic on the BECMI Basic D&D (including Keep on the Borderlands) and the advanced on D&D 3.5 (maybe 4, if I could be convinced it's a better fit for experienced players).  The goal of the beginning game would be to get players and GMs playing quickly, keeping the choices and rules simple (including random character generation).  The goal of the Advanced set would be to include all of the detailed rules and options that experienced players can deal with.  I'd focus the marketing on the unlimited potential for adventure and social elements of the face-to-face role-playing versus online games instead of trying to be more like them.

If I didn't have investors to answer too I would release all editions under an open license.

I would then create a Classic D&D product and a handful of support products and keep that as a evergreen line like monopoly or clue. Try to get it into toy stores.

For Dungeons & Dragons I would revive the d20 system except work on the classes, feats, skills, and monster so high level play is lot smoother. If this can be done I consider than an ideal compromise for the mainstream D&D. You get the customization of 3e, the ease of use of 4e, and the elements of older editions in one package.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;366958Mine would most resemble Arcana Unearthed/Evolved combined with Iron Heroes.

I'd buy that.

Mine would probably end up closer to resembling Warhammer only without being tied heavily to a setting and creating for a much longer range of character development.  So really my ideal D&D is pretty far from being D&D.

I think I'd like something like 2e, but with the core mechanic from 3e, and some measure of better customization without going all 3e-splat-overboard.  

In fact, ban splats altogether.  Good solid, well-built core is all you need, the rest should be awesome hex crawl settings.

My ideal D&D is pretty much the Rules Cyclopedia.

RPGPundit

Quote from: J Arcane;367282I think I'd like something like 2e, but with the core mechanic from 3e, and some measure of better customization without going all 3e-splat-overboard.  

In fact, ban splats altogether.  Good solid, well-built core is all you need, the rest should be awesome hex crawl settings.

I sort of disagree.

I liked Jeff's notion of releasing a basic game, and then adding on complexity with future sourcebooks.

Say that in the basic game, you condense armor down into just Light, Medium and Heavy...and for weapons you just have basic categories like Light Blade, Heavy Blade, Hammer, Axe, Spear, Polearm, etc.

Then later down the line release something like an arms and equipment guide that has rules and properties for specific weapons, say a longsword vs. a broadsword.

Also, if you keep the basic races/classes to just the classics, you could later release sourcebooks for more thematically compartmentalized base classes.

So you could have a new "Masters of the Wild" that adds more nature-y based classes, and a new "Tome and Blood" that has more obscure arcane classes.

My ideal D&D would be an updated (with modern professional-quality graphics & art) version of the D&D game as it existed from 1974-83 (i.e. a theoretically-uncapped game that in practice maxes out around levels 12-14 rather than the explicit 36-level arc of the Companion & Master sets and Rules Cyclopedia) packaged in a box with a ~16pp booklet of tutorial material for new players (think the first half of the Mentzer Basic players book), a ~32pp booklet of tutorial material for new DMs (the first half of the Mentzer Basic DM book), a ~64-96pp reference rulebook (the combined Moldvay/Cook/Marsh B/X rulebooks), a set of dice, a bunch of character sheet blanks and little golf pencils embossed with the D&D logo, and a CD with reference material, tools to make the DM's job easier (encounter-builders, mapping aids, etc.), and a trial subscription to a DDI-like service for finding players, playing online, getting new content, etc. I'd also do a "collector's edition" slipcase set of the 3 core AD&D rulebooks exactly as released in the 70s along with a CD containing pdfs of the rest of the core AD&D canon through 1985 (the other rulebooks, modules, World of Greyhawk set, etc.). Both versions would have Open Licenses to allow third party publisher support.

Quote from: T. Foster;367386My ideal D&D would be an updated (with modern professional-quality graphics & art) version of the D&D game as it existed from 1974-83 (i.e. a theoretically-uncapped game that in practice maxes out around levels 12-14 rather than the explicit 36-level arc of the Companion & Master sets and Rules Cyclopedia) packaged in a box with a ~16pp booklet of tutorial material for new players (think the first half of the Mentzer Basic players book), a ~32pp booklet of tutorial material for new DMs (the first half of the Mentzer Basic DM book), a ~64-96pp reference rulebook (the combined Moldvay/Cook/Marsh B/X rulebooks), a set of dice, a bunch of character sheet blanks and little golf pencils embossed with the D&D logo, and a CD with reference material, tools to make the DM's job easier (encounter-builders, mapping aids, etc.), and a trial subscription to a DDI-like service for finding players, playing online, getting new content, etc. I'd also do a "collector's edition" slipcase set of the 3 core AD&D rulebooks exactly as released in the 70s along with a CD containing pdfs of the rest of the core AD&D canon through 1985 (the other rulebooks, modules, World of Greyhawk set, etc.). Both versions would have Open Licenses to allow third party publisher support.

You sir, are a god among men.

Quote from: RPGPundit;367316My ideal D&D is pretty much the Rules Cyclopedia.

RPGPundit

That be my second favorite. Seriously, I use BEC (rarely get games to M level anymore) and love the Cyclopedia a lot.

Although I like something a bit simpler for what D&D does much of the time. (Not that Cyclopedia isn't simple, but there is a certain level of complexity vs flexibility in it that I'd like to avoid.)

Quote from: Silverlion;367436That be my second favorite. Seriously, I use BEC (rarely get games to M level anymore) and love the Cyclopedia a lot.

Although I like something a bit simpler for what D&D does much of the time. (Not that Cyclopedia isn't simple, but there is a certain level of complexity vs flexibility in it that I'd like to avoid.)

But the question here was phrased in terms of what would be the ideal "edition" you'd make of D&D, not "what would be the ideal version you'd play".
There's an important difference, and with regards to the RC this plays out in the sense that the core elements of the RC are incredibly simple (by D&D standards), and then there are a bunch of Added Options, which by the nature of how they were originally introduced (step-by-step in subsequent sets; expert, companion, master) are completely modular. You can use them or ignore them completely.

That's why I say the RC is the best edition, because its the easiest one of all to run as something very simple, or very complex. If I want to, I can have just the four basic classes and three basic demihuman races, nothing fancy; or if I want to I can add druids, mystics, Paladins, Avengers, Weapon Mastery, Skills, Dominion Rules, Mass Combat, etc etc. etc.
Or anything in between those two extremes.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;367443But the question here was phrased in terms of what would be the ideal "edition" you'd make of D&D, not "what would be the ideal version you'd play".


Or anything in between those two extremes.

RPGPundit

No worries. I like a lot of D&D's ideas, just wish it were simpler at times.

S&W comes close for me, but some of the wonkiness of D&D is still there, streamline it some and I'd be a happy camper. I'm doing my own damned house rules slowly for it anyways. All the spell progression charts are quite silly in the older D&D games. Clean them up and make them more uniform. Release it as a boxed set as T. Foster said - and there you go. At least the basics are covered that way.

To me D&D works as it best with a straight forward set of core rules (similar Sword & Wizardry or Labyrinth Lord) with supplements IMPLEMENTING D&D for a particular sub genre or setting.  This is opposed to the approach where you have products that officially expand or "fix" the core rules. Instead of trying to supporting multiple supplements at once like in the 2e era you focus on one or two per product cycle (a year or two years).

A line of core rule only adventures and aides would also be a good idea. If you were to "expand" the core rules. Then it would be a true expansion rather than more of the same. For example adding mass combat and raising of armies, trade, etc in a separate book. Stuff that cuts across most sub-genres and settings.

The advantage of this approach is that you have a constant set of core rules that are evergreen. And you use supplements to have something "new" to present every year.

The convention games and living campaign would use just the core rules. Perhaps additionally focusing on a particular supplement that gets rotated out after two years or so.

The home tabletop referee would have the supplements to cherry pick stuff for their own campaigns.

The core stuff would be under a open license. Also I agree with T. Foster that reprinting exact copies of older editions would also be done.