I'm wondering how many people would be interested in creating an OGL (Open Game License) version of D&D that would be inclusive for everyone.

I envision that we would take all the concepts that are the same between editions and put them into a 'core' of the game that you would then add 'modules' to in order to create your preferred game type.

The things that are similar between editions are Race, Class, Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Charisma, Wisdom, Intelligence, AC, saving throws (as a way to avoid an effect), move speed, attack actions like bull rush or grapple, etc...etc...

For instance Races and Classes as a base structure are very similar throughout the game. The Race usually gives you a few traits that are advantageous. The Class usually gives you some kind of attack bonus scaling as well as a few features. So to play a 1E style game you would just use the base Classes with the 'tough' module which would add in higher save bonuses and better scaling. Spell casting classes would add in the 'deadly spells' module that has powerful spells that have extreme side effects like haste aging you and causing a system shock roll or death. If you were to play a 4E style game you would add the 'powers' module to allow you to select powers that you could use. This could be done throughout the game.

What do you think? Are you interested?

That seems... complicated. Why not just run 4E if you want a 4E type game?

~SE++

Lack of continued support and the problems with 4E like slow combat and option bloat and lack of options to do the things that you want...

That's called "3.5", dood.

3.5 is the overabundance of options so the that it takes days just to skim through them. I'd rather just have a game that is well tested and works and doesn't have a bazillion options to confuse my players...

>Wants options
>Doesn't want options
lolwut.

Also, it only takes days if it takes you days to actually get each book. Reading through classes and feats is easy and very fast.

There is a sweet spot where you have a variety of options to do what you want with and not enough options where you are overwhelmed. This is what we would aim for, rather than the sparse options in 4E or the multitude of options in 3.5E...

Limit book selection. For example, I'm running a game that's "SRD, Complete... series, and Book of 9 Swords".

Yeah, it's called "having a good memory."
I reiterate:
>Says wants options
>Doesn't want options
lolwut.

Nope, again you are using a false dichotomy. There are at least 3 options: not enough options, the perfect amount of options, and too many options. You are trying to force everything into the view that there are either not enough options or too many options...

What is it with you and using words you don't understand?
No, there are only "Not enough" and "enough." "Too many options" doesn't exist.
No, actually that's you. Cute try, though.

If you think too many options exist, than as either player or GM, you have a very easy fix: impose limits (either self-limits or all-game limits). You don't want to use Incarnum or Tome of Magic? Well, no one is forcing you to. You think that book X doesn't fit your setting? Let the players know it's off-limits. You can go SRD only, every published book, and anything in between. That's actually why "too many options" is nonexistant. Too few options does exist, on the other hand.

All I'm getting from this thread is that you want to play Pathfinder.

CJ you can contradict someone without being a complete ass to them.

Unfortunately if you do that your players have to agree to the limits and hopefully it doesn't break one of their builds or disallow an option that would fit their character concept.

I'd rather have a limited set of options that could be used in a variety of ways and are very flexible...

For example if one option is narrow like this:

"You may cast any arcane area effect spell through an arrow, when the arrow hits a target the spell is discharged centered on the arrow."

I'd rather have a more open option like:

"you may cast any spell through a weapon, when the weapon hits a target the spell is discharged as if the weapon had cast the spell (if it is an area spell it is discharged centered on the weapon)."

The first allows you to create an Arcane Archer. The second allows Arcane Archer, Sword (melee weapon) Mage, Certain builds of Sorcerer, and many others that aren't even thought up yet...

That's why you talk to the players while you set up the campaign. It's a collaborative game, after all.

While I agree that more flexible options is better, that really isn't that different from "more options". It's just more concise. Flexible options can introduce balance problems if not carefully written out (admittedly, so can narrow ones), however, and narrowed options allow for specific character concepts to be better represented. A character is defined by limits as well as by abilities. Your second option doesn't distinguish between the concepts you mention, for example. Theme isn't really present, it's just "I use spells through weapons". Which, I suppose, leaves it up to the player to develop the character's theme.

However, my biggest problem with limited options is that it denies ways to accomplish unusual ideas in most cases (part of why I say that many narrow and well-defined options isn't very different from somewhat less broad and flexible options, except for more easily providing limits for the characters' abilities and being easier in some ways to balance and modify). It also means that some ideas will be either completely unrepresentable or can only be approached in one subpar way (just look at 4E or Core-only 3.5).

As a note, your example seems like it would fit a classless system quite well, though.

Then talk to them. Or just give them free reign and tell them not to be douches. Either one works.
Then be a Duskblade. You're welcome.
Except there are better ways to do all of those.
Yeah, but almost all of those suck.

Keep n mind we are talking about creating a new system based on the OGL. So nothing works yet as we haven't designed anything...

Yeah, I've rarely seen a fully classless system I liked. Black Crusade and Only War are close, but there's still something resembling classes in both. I liked Mutants and Masterminds, though the GM when I tried it could have done a much better job. Pretty much all the others I've seen do indeed suck, though.