I have said a few times lately that I think Gygax's core design is a big part of D&D's success.  (his writing not so much...)  I think maybe I should investigate that.

D&D is a miniatures wargame (cue the Geezer in 3, 2, 1).  It's roots in wargaming are obvious.  However, that's what makes it a great story telling game.  The whole "just about everything man sized is 1HD" is a MOOK RULE!  It allows for the easy removal of most minor foes.  (and makes 4e's minion rule that much more pathetic and silly) The much maligned alignment system is a simple method of Emulating Genre Appropriate Conflicts.  The character classes are Archetype keywords!  Holy crap!  Ron Edwards was riffing on Gygax all along!

So here's the core as I see it.

Statistics give +1 per 2 points over 10.  I actually prefer the +1 per point over 15 because the dead zone fits well with the one hit dice principle.  You have to be pretty special to get a bonus.  But since most folks like the current method we'll go there instead.

Character Classes give +1 per level to their primary activity.  So thieves get +1 per level to their theives skills, wizards spells are 1 level harder to save against etc.  Thieves and clerics get +1 for every 2 levels for fighting and wizards every 3 levels and so on.

Hit points give 1 hit dice per level.  That's right: player characters start as mooks.  Constitution bonuses are added per level.  Death occurs at -Constitution hp.  Now let's talk about "expanding the sweet spot".  Wizards and clerics can enscribe scrolls for 100 gp / spell level.  I'll expand that further and say they can also do potions for 150 gp / spell level.  If you can cast it you can can it.  Therefore healing potions will appear on the price list at a mere 300 gp and wizards can sell potions for 300 gp so a party without a cleric can invest in some healing potions at the get go.

Magic Items of a more permanent nature are rare and expensive and never bought in a boutique at the adventure's guild.

Combat will use 1d20 + dex or int for inititiative.  Weapons will be balanced with initiative or to hit modifiers.  A club may do less damage but it's real easy to figure out.  Armour will make you harder to hit but the following options apply.  Attack AC 10 treating armour as DR.  Apply to hit bonus to AC instead of attacking.  Divide to hit bonus against multiple targets.  The movement rules and attacks against side or rear rules will resemble AD&D more than the current model.

Spells will be fire and forget.  Wizards and Clerics will both get bonus spells and be able to make scrolls and potions to extend their capabilities.

Saving Throws will follow the modern stat vs target model and will generally be half effect / damage rather than negation.  Fire and forget spells really shouldn't require attack rolls or be easy to negate entirely unless they would be ridiculously powerful otherwise.

Monsters are not characters and only need their Hit Dice, AC, and Movement Rate.  I really like the Castles & Crusades monster hit dice method where a tenth level Kobold would have 10d4 and get +10 to hit so we'll use it.  If we ever need a Strength score for a monster it will be hit dice type x 2.

Skills will be an optional rule in a non-core book.  In the core you'll just roll and add your stat bonus and work from the assumption that if you're a thief you're better at that than blacksmithing.

Yes, this is a bit like Castles & Crusades.  There's a lot I like about C&C.  I hate the seige engine and primes though...

Quote from: David Johansen;396285(his writing not so much...)

I think his writing is a huge part of the success of D&D. People still shower love on the 1e DMG, and not because the charts are magical.

Quote from: David Johansen;396285So here's the core as I see it.

Good stuff.

I've never jotted down "my ideal D&D". It exists only as an ever-changing mishmash of different editions and houserules in my head, and that's how I like it.

But right now, it goes something like this:

Take Labyrinth Lord as a base. Because D&D RC is my favorite iteration, and I prefer LL's 20-level spread to the ludicrous 36-level spread of the RC.

Classes: Fighter, Cleric, Magic-User, Thief, Dwarf, Elf. Halfling. Mostly unchanged, except for the Thief; I want everyone to get a shot at moving silently, or climbing walls, but I still want Thieves to be the best at this. I'm not sure how to handle it, there are quite a few options out there, and the "saving throw" approach is the one I like best so far. I'd also up the Thief HD to 1d6, and use the Cleric to-hit table (Thieves are not front-line warriors, but I don't think they should be strangers to physical conflict either).

Jury's still out on whether to allow the RC's proto-"prestige classes" (Paladins, Knights, Avengers and Druids). I'm tempted to implement "prestige class" versions of the Cavalier (focusing on mounted combat and leadership), Ranger for Fighters, Bard and Assassin for Thieves, and no more. I generally dislike Druids and Monks as PCs.

Use the spell lists from Swords & Wizardry which are much more varied and interesting than the LL and RC ones.

I'll use some sort of rudimentary skill/proficiency system. I dislike the implementations I'm the most familiar with (D&D RC, AD&D 2e), and I emphatically do not want to burden my D&D with a full-blown skill system. I want these putative skills to be broad, useful, and a reflection of your character's background.

I'm still undecided on Weapon Mastery. I like how it gives high-level Fighters their due, but I'd change the system from RC considerably; e.g. Fighters get a lot of slots, Magic-Users get very little.

Other stuff. Refer to the D&D RC for Name level, strongholds and mass combat. Jury's still out on apotheosis (Immortality). Use monsters from all over.

And there you go. Thoughts?

I don't agree with your thesis; Gary's mechanics ebbed and flowed as time went on (is OD&D the same as OD&D with Supplement I?  Is OD&D with or without Supplement I the same as AD&D with the core rulebooks only?  Is AD&D with the core rulebooks the same as AD&D with Unearthed Arcana and/or World of Greyhawk (which does include rule changes/additions))?  No, they are not.  Fundamentally yes, but an AD&D Cleric in the World of Greyhawk using supplemental rules from Unearthed Arcana is a very different beast from an OD&D three-books-only cleric.

What was consistent was Gary's writing, Gary's attitude.  That, to me, is "core Gygax".

As to tinkering with rules and whatnot, hey, you're the Dungeon Master.  Knock yourself out.

Quote from: David Johansen;396285I have said a few times lately that I think Gygax's core design is a big part of D&D's success.  (his writing not so much...)  I think maybe I should investigate that.

snip .......

I'd buy that game.  

Especially if you can generalize the classes a bit so you get an Illusionist by making certain choices as a Magic-User, no need for a whole subclass.

I do disagree with you on Gygax's writing style (love it as a writing style not so much a rules exposition style) and that bit aboout the core of D&D's design, it had a bit of Arneson in there to say the least.  Classes, saving throws,...or so I've read.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;396308Fundamentally yes, but an AD&D Cleric in the World of Greyhawk using supplemental rules from Unearthed Arcana is a very different beast from an OD&D three-books-only cleric.

I didn't quite get how your point about how much OD&D/AD&D varied related to Mr Johansen's post, sorry. However, mostly I'm just posting since I'm curious about the above comment - I remember UA having more cleric spells, but did it have any particular impact on the cleric that I missed??

Yes, I'm aware D&D evolved as time rolled on.  Also, I love Gygax's prose but I know that many people found it far too dense and meandering for their meager reading skills.  I wouldn't want to strip out DMG quotes and scatter them through a rule book.  If I want the DMG I'll read the DMG.

What I'm talking about is an approachable core that can sit in boxes at Toys R Us and Walmart and be transparent to the market.

You see, my arguement is that the wargame roots of D&D are what made it such a good tool for hanging a narrative game upon.  See, too many folks in the eighties associate wargames with the SPI minutae and case point rules format and design concepts.  Miniatures wargames were generally fluffier and more about narrative scenario play back in the day.

Various things you wouldn't see in my version, long lists of class abilities like Castles and Crusades has, feats, powers, magic item shopping lists, level titles*, endless additional classes that do the same thing.

Look, much as I love 'em knights are just fighters, paladins are just fighter clerics, rangers are just fighters who go to folk festivals, and sorcerers, magicians, and necromancers are all just magic-users of one stripe or another.

I'm not fully sure what I'd do with clerics, I don't want to scrap them but by the time you take away their fighting abilities they're basically a specialist magic-user.  Perhaps leaving Paladins out entirely would help.  Essentially making clerics a fighter / magic-user.

*level titles should not be confused with culturally appropriate social titles that are bestowed upon individuals to recognize their prowess.

Quote from: David Johansen;396374What I'm talking about is an approachable core that can sit in boxes at Toys R Us and Walmart and be transparent to the market.

Isn't that the idea behind the D&D Essentials starter set?

Quote from: David Johansen;396374You see, my arguement is that the wargame roots of D&D are what made it such a good tool for hanging a narrative game upon.  See, too many folks in the eighties associate wargames with the SPI minutae and case point rules format and design concepts.  Miniatures wargames were generally fluffier and more about narrative scenario play back in the day.

Being familiar with OD&D, though ignorant of wargaming in general, I find the idea intriguing.

Quote from: David Johansen;396374Look, much as I love 'em knights are just fighters, paladins are just fighter clerics, rangers are just fighters who go to folk festivals, and sorcerers, magicians, and necromancers are all just magic-users of one stripe or another.

I agree in principle, in that I'm all for strongly defined, archetypal classes. But I like the idea of small mechanical benefits realted to a character's background, e.g. Roderick the Gallant and Chagatai of the Steppes are both Fighters, but one is a heavily-armored, honor-bound lancer, and the other is a rugged, lightly-armored archer. I'm not sure about how to best implement it, though, without further weighing down the system with crufty and unwieldly lists of abilities.

Quote from: David Johansen;396374I'm not fully sure what I'd do with clerics, I don't want to scrap them but by the time you take away their fighting abilities they're basically a specialist magic-user.  Perhaps leaving Paladins out entirely would help.  Essentially making clerics a fighter / magic-user.

I keep clerics because it's D&D, but you could always do away with Clerics entirely, and add their spells to the Magic-User list. Or as a compromise, you could have a Priest ("cloistered Cleric") class which is effectively a Magic-User, only using the Cleric spell list.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;396365I didn't quite get how your point about how much OD&D/AD&D varied related to Mr Johansen's post, sorry. However, mostly I'm just posting since I'm curious about the above comment - I remember UA having more cleric spells, but did it have any particular impact on the cleric that I missed??

He said:

QuoteI have said a few times lately that I think Gygax's core design is a big part of D&D's success. (his writing not so much...)

...and I disagree.  Gary's core design changed periodically.  I used OD&D clerics' evolution through OD&D, to AD&D (core) and AD&D (with UA and/or WoG) as an example.  Maybe thieves would have been a better go-to; with the split off to thief/acrobat, they represent a more radical change.  

However, Gary's writing is still Gary's writing.  I like it, most of the other "geezers" I know who still play original or AD&D like it...it just works for us, it's part of the charm, it feels like a fatherly (or fellow gamer to fellow gamer) discussion of the rules rather than Fantasy Stereo Instructions.

Without Gary's writing, the game is stale to me.

so...Gary's writing stayed consistent even as his rules changed.  Read Mythus/DJ or LA or the stuff he wrote for C&C.  That's pure Gary right there.

Wargames are not what the OP thinks they are...etc. pp.

I lot of the stuff you're mentioning never existed in D&D until 3ed and are hardly "core." I really don't like how scaling works in 3ed, so that (for example) unless you min-max your saves it'll get harder and harder to make your saving throw against a wizard of your level as you level up.

Quote from: Settembrini;396415Wargames are not what the OP thinks they are...etc. pp.

hmmm...I played hex and counter wargames and I play more Warhammer than rpgs these days.  (an unfortunate state of affairs that...)

As far as what I see as Gygax's core I'd say: the six stats, broad archetypical character classes, subclasses*, alignments, armor makes you harder to hit, the one hit dice mook paradim, money as a point system (honestly do you really believe a stick with string on it costs three times more than three feet of well forged steel?), fire and forget spells, the spell list, the monster list, and, of course, polyhedral dice.

As I noted in my prior posts, I'd go with the current stat bonus range, ascending armour classes, d20 thief's abilities, and the 3e saving throw paradim because they are very popular changes that actually speed up play.  I don't think the saving throw modifiers would progress how they do in 3e but the reflex, will, and health save concept would remain.  The old save vs wands, staves, spells, death thing reflected the relative power of the source.

*I think some form of subclass would exist but not in the core set.

And yes D&D essentials is intended to do much of what I want.  Except being rooted in 4e and designed by the WotC folks I don't have high hopes for it being any good.

I played the heck out of 1E & 2E. I used miniatures extensively in both editions. The D&D sweet spot for me though has been the 3.5/OGL edition (and now Pathfinder). And under that edition I never used miniatures as a GM and only used counters once as a player. So for me at least, D&D *isn't* a wargame. And a skill system is integral. But I *am* a self-confessed old grognard... "You 4E players! Off my lawn!"

I think Sett's point (or the one I was about to make at any rate) is there isn't a clear connection to wargaming specifically, in what you say makes D&D great.

Other than that I like what you're doing here and I agree that "core" transcends minor differences between versions and supplements at least up to the arrival of 2e if not 3e. The most important thing is the combination of certain features like class & level, escalating hp, to-hit/damage in a fundamentally simple, easy to intuit, easy to modify package.

Don't like levels for monsters, though, on the whole. 10th level kobold? Pfft.

I like Gary's writing, even if it sometimes seems a bit obscure. To me, the "ideal Gygax" would be some combination of rules sets from the decade of the mid-70's to the mid-80's -- essentially the OD&D an d1E AD&D years. Before this time D&D was too miniatures-filled (e.g. "Chainmail") and from the late 1E into 2E there were too many add-ons (skills and kits) for my liking. I want character templates (classes) without too many add-ons. I want simple NPC and monster stat-blocks.

Nowadays, if I don't play OD&D/AD&D I play C&C. It's a nice blend (to me) of the old and the new, and it seems to make my players of all styles the happiest as a compromise. While I have no problem with primes, SIEGE, etc, I'd say that if you don't like that part then change it. I think that's the way Gary would have wanted it.