Okay, so this list of ten questions from the Random Wizard blog is making the rounds so I figured what the heck. Actually it's blatantly obvious that this is a cheap ploy to draw out us non-OSR types so they'll know who to put in front of the firing squad when the revolution comes. But I'm pretty sure they already have me on the list so why not shout it from the rooftops...
(1). Race (Elf, Dwarf, Halfling) as a class? Yes or no? Hmm, race as class is an interesting design decision. However it reduces player choice too much in building characters and makes the race-classes too predictable as NPCs. So, no.
(2). Do demi-humans have souls? Actually I would prefer that each race have a unique type or "flavor" of soul, so yes.
(3). Ascending or descending armor class? OMG! Ascending! Descending armor class was always totally counter-intuitive.
(4). Demi-human level limits? I got tired of seeing people avoid playing classes because they saw there was a level cap. Heck, I avoid classes with level caps. That shouldn't enter into the decision of what to play. So, no.
(5). Should thief be a class? Hell yes!
(6). Do characters get non-weapon skills? Without non-weapon skills there's no way to customize. All fighters are the same, all clerics are the same, etc. And there's no way to express character background. I'm running into this problem with my Castles & Crusades character now. So, yes.
(7). Are magic-users more powerful than fighters (and, if yes, what level do they take the lead)? At first probably not, later on yes unless maybe the fighter gets the drop on them. I like a rough balance between the two.
(8). Do you use alignment languages? Another dumb early D&D idea which needs to stay dead, so no--not ever.
(9). XP for gold, or XP for objectives (thieves disarming traps, etc...)? XP for gold makes no sense at all. Sounds more like an idea from a cheap board game rather than a proper RPG. So, no to that. XP for accomplishing difficult tasks is fun so yes to that.
(10). Which is the best edition; ODD, Holmes, Moldvay, Mentzer, Rules Cyclopedia, 1E ADD, 2E ADD, 3E ADD, 4E ADD, Next ? Umm, Pathfinder? =) Okay so 3E then, but 4E had some interesting design concepts which still intrigue me. I'm still deciding about Next.
Bonus Question: Unified XP level tables or individual XP level tables for each class? Individual level tables is another bad old D&D idea which needs to stay dead and buried. Players shouldn't be comparing leveling tables to decide which class to play. So, no. It's bad RPG design.