D20 Low Fantasy Mashup (severely chop 3.5, mix in some Gurps, a dash of 5E)

Character

Atts
STR/CON, DEX/REF, INT/PER, CHA/WIL. Range -4 to +4. DEX is for melee, REF is for ranged.

Races
Dwarf, Elf, Halfling, Human.

Hit Points
10 + (CON * 2) + Level bonus

Levels
1 to 10.  

Classes
Fighter: 3 HP per level
Paladin: 3 HP per level
Ranger: 3 HP per level

Rogue: 2 HP per level
Bard: 2 HP per level

Cleric: 2 HP per level
Wizard: 1 HP per level

Notes on Classes
Druids are just clerics with the Nature domain.
Bards, Paladins, and Rangers aren't casters, but get quasi-magical feats.
Barbarians and Monks are just fighters with fighting style feats and roleplaying.
Warlocks are just wizards who made bad life choices.

Feats
Severely chopped down list (like 5E). Wizards and Clerics don't get any.

Skills
Every class gets 6 skills. There's no Base Attack bonus and no saving throws, these are replaced with skills.  

Spells
Only spell levels 1 through 3, no earth-shattering magic. There is no need to prepare spells, all casters are spontaneous. Spells are skills. A 1 is a possible backlash. A 20 is a possible surge. They cause Fatigue (non-lethal damage as in 3.5).

Rules

Armor
Absorbs damage, which is why the HP are low.

Criticals
On a 20, you do max damage. On a 1, roll a d10. If roll a 1 or 2, you have a CF, otherwise you have a normal failure. -4 to next action.

Fate Points
Start with 3. Before a roll, roll 2d20, select best. Replenish 1 per day when you wake.

Initiative
Roll D6 for sides. Winning side can go first or second. Go around the table.

Short rests
One hour. Regain D4 HP, unless negative. Erase D4 fatigue.

Long Rests
8 hours of sleep. Regain Level in HP. Erase all fatigue.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1003211I disagree that this is what the OP wanted, as my understanding was that he wanted a neutral base system upon which to build modules that would support multiple versions of D&D.  I'll defer to the OP to clarify.  In any case, your answer makes sense given your assumptions.

What I wanted was to pose this:

If you had to create your own D&D Heartbreaker - without losing "The Classic D&D" bits - how would you do it?

I think that needle can be threaded and still appeal to the various D&D edition tribalists out there (which may or may not include you). If people want to inject Heartbreaking elements into their brand of D&D, that's fine, but you risk losing the "Classic D&D" conceit, which your may or may not care about.

The ulterior reason for all this is simple: I want to see what other people would do. Because if anyone ever decides to do a D&D Heartbreaker, at least here are some inspiring ideas to start from. Greater things have come from unlikelier places.

And I stand by my assertion - I *do* like seeing other people's take on this. I'm still shocked at how conservative my positions are compared to a lot of these responses. It's fun to see!

Quote from: tenbones;1003478If people want to inject Heartbreaking elements into their brand of D&D, that's fine, but you risk losing the "Classic D&D" conceit, which your may or may not care about.

Having the word Heartbreaker right in the title of the thread may have confused people.

Quote from: tenbones;1003478If you had to create your own D&D Heartbreaker - without losing "The Classic D&D" bits - how would you do it?

After working with this stuff for a decade my view of what constitutes the minimum D&D is.

• Six attributes: Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma generated on a 3 to 18 scale with 10 being human normal average.
• Saving throws to avoid bad things from happening.
• Armor Class as a target or a chart reference to see if damage is scored.
• d20 for the to hit roll
• Difference races/cultures that offer a package of attributes bonuses and abilities.
• Experienced characters are presented by levels which more capable character being higher levels.
• Classes that are a package of abilities arranged by levels.
• A character's health is represented by Hit Point when brought to zero incapacitates or kills the character.
• Creatures can have hit dice instead of levels.
• Creatures at a minimum have hit dice, hit points, movement, armor classic, and a list of special abilities including attacks.

Anything beyond this is fair game. As long the above list is implemented it will be highly likely that the game will be seen as D&D compatible.

You need to keep a target edition in mind because the numbers work out differently for OD&D, OD&D+Greyhawk, AD&D, AD&D+Unearthed Arcana, Holmes Basic D&D, B/X D&D, BECMI D&D, AD&D 2e, AD&D 2e + Skill & Powers, D&D 3.0, D&D 3.5, D&D 4e, and D&D 5e. The interplay of the numbers used for to hit, ac, hit points, and damage is a large part of what gives each edition their specific flavor. The good news is not rocket science to tweak it. Just need to figure out what you want it to be like and go from there.

Note what not on this list. No Magic Users with vancian spell memorization, Clerics with healing magic, Thiefs, fighters, magic missile, fire ball, elves, dwarves, longsword, short bows, etc, etc. Most of this is "stuff" that can vary from setting to setting and campaign to campaign. More important fore mention are generally self contained in that when added that section completely explains what the item is about. The except being spell using classes which refer to a separate section with a list of spells or magical effects.

It possible to go beyond this to do things like have skills, feats, stack one class level on top of another, and so forth and so on. But it my observation that as long this stacks on top of the above it will be considered D&D.

And keep in mind that the more traditional "stuff" you keep the more likely it is viewed as compatible. D&D 4e is a good example of a D&D variant that has most of my list implemented but is largely viewed as incompatible with prior editions.

It easy to navel gaze or over think this. The guiding principle should be "Given my target edition, how much work does a referee using that edition has to do use my material."  D&D 4e requires a lot of work. Arrows of Indra and Spears at Dawn do not in regards to classic D&D.

Quote from: tenbones;1003478I think that needle can be threaded and still appeal to the various D&D edition tribalists out there (which may or may not include you). If people want to inject Heartbreaking elements into their brand of D&D, that's fine, but you risk losing the "Classic D&D" conceit, which your may or may not care about.

Again in my experience it breaks down to Classic D&D (OD&D to AD&D 2e), D&D 3.X (including Pathfinder), D&D 4e, and D&D 5e. Now Classic D&D and D&D 5e have an interesting relationship in that balances of the different numbers is similar to the early edition of classic D&D. But it achieves this in a completely different manner. The to-hit bonuses and AC are comparable between classic D&D and 5e. But hit points and damage are boosted in 5e compared to say OD&D + Greyhawk.

My experience with both is that they work out to the same but D&D 5e balance allows it to offer more options for character customization. And interesting enough allows a class to be treated like classic character class and still work as effectively as a class with umpteen options. For example the Fighter (Champion) vs. Fighter (Battlemaster).

The upshot of this is that while a classic D&D product will need a rewrite for the 5e market it is mostly on the technical side of writing stat blocks, etc. How the adventure flows and the result of a party facing a dozen orcs or two wyverns works out to be the same in both.

Quote from: tenbones;1003478And I stand by my assertion - I *do* like seeing other people's take on this. I'm still shocked at how conservative my positions are compared to a lot of these responses. It's fun to see!

Because many suggestions are proposing a fantasy heartbreaker not a D&D heartbreaker.

Despite my publishing history, I don't particularly love D&D. My favorites for fantasy rules is still GURPS and Harnmaster. What I love is the sandbox campaigns, worldbuilding, and the D&D style adventures. And I found the best way for me to share my material is using D&D mechanics in the form of classic D&D specifically a OD&D variant.

I found that the more you diverge from what makes D&D, D&D, the more work you impose on the typical gamer to use your stuff. So I learned how to do what I do using classic D&D. One criteria I use when deciding how to design an addition is how D&D it is.

Quote from: estar;1003488

• Six attributes: Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma generated on a 3 to 18 scale with 10 being human normal average.
  
• Saving throws to avoid bad things from happening.
• Armor Class as a target or a chart reference to see if damage is scored.
• d20 for the to hit roll
  
• Difference races/cultures that offer a package of attributes bonuses and abilities.
  
• Experienced characters are presented by levels which more capable character being higher levels.
• Classes that are a package of abilities arranged by levels.
  
• A character's health is represented by Hit Point when brought to zero incapacitates or kills the character.
• Creatures can have hit dice instead of levels.
  
• Creatures at a minimum have hit dice, hit points, movement, armor classic, and a list of special abilities including attacks.
  

If we cut out all the boldest parts, then what can we call it?

Quote from: Cave Bear;1003492If we cut out all the boldest parts, then what can we call it?

Hit points, armor class, saves, attacks and levels? Probably just call it a broader net than a D&D heartbreaker. Excluding a slightly different thing than saves, that also catches Tekumel, Gamma World, Paladium, virtually any D&D inspired computer game... come to think of it, it's not bad. I'd just probably refer to that category as "all level based RPGs," rather that "D&D heartbreaker."

Quote from: tenbones;1003478What I wanted was to pose this:

If you had to create your own D&D Heartbreaker - without losing "The Classic D&D" bits - how would you do it?

I think that needle can be threaded and still appeal to the various D&D edition tribalists out there (which may or may not include you). If people want to inject Heartbreaking elements into their brand of D&D, that's fine, but you risk losing the "Classic D&D" conceit, which your may or may not care about.

The ulterior reason for all this is simple: I want to see what other people would do. Because if anyone ever decides to do a D&D Heartbreaker, at least here are some inspiring ideas to start from. Greater things have come from unlikelier places.

And I stand by my assertion - I *do* like seeing other people's take on this. I'm still shocked at how conservative my positions are compared to a lot of these responses. It's fun to see!

I'm less tribalist and more half disinterested observer and other half potential audience for some slice of such a product.  That is, I like what I like, but don't really care what others are doing, except insomuch as what they do aligns with what I want to do.

The disinterest comes from, I don't think you get to where you want to go, and satisfy Rob's list of what he considers essential to D&D. Though I do agree with him that something very much like his list is required to be compatible and acceptable to what many people would call D&D.

Flatly, I think you can be compatible with most versions or you can be modular to support something very D&D-ish that will support the play styles of most versions, but not both.  It is precisely the intersection with the classic six attributes, saving throws, class and race choice, etc. that the various editions clash.  

Some of the more outlandish ideas thrown out there (like mine) are emphasizing the play styles approach, while others are making compatibility the priority.  (A commercially and/or popular try would make some compromises on both approaches, but would still err towards compatibility.  And you'd get something very similar to what 5E already does, in general design, if not exact choices.  The more "out there" play style features would be carefully considered and vetted, on the grounds that not only do they have to be triples or home runs, but you can only do so many, leading to opportunity costs--that is, the short list is the best of the best, and merely good doesn't make the cut.)  

OTOH, I wouldn't attempt such a thing, because I know what I would do is not compatible with D&D.  If I'm going to consciously make a D&D-ish but not D&D game, then obviously "merely good" does make the cut.  There is some remote chance that an outlandish thing I might try would make your more conservative cut as one of the few exceptions--but more likely it might spark an idea in someone else that get mangled beyond recognition before finally making the cut.  As a brainstorming session, it's not good to cut out options too soon, even when you know most of them are going nowhere.

Quote from: Cave Bear;1003492If we cut out all the boldest parts, then what can we call it?

It would in the same boat as any other new RPG. You would have to  playtest the hell out of it, make sure the writing and editing are top notch, the layout is pleasant looking, and do a lot work promoting it. Your target would be have to be the hobby as a whole rather than the D&D fanbase.

The Dungeon Crawl Classic RPG  is a good example of a company launching a new RPG the right way.