OD&D 4 me (April Fools)

wedgeski · Mar 31, 2008

It's a red-ink bloodbath! Rather than believe the entire moderation staff of my fave site have collapsed into edition-war anarchy, I will smile and look knowingly at what the date almost is.

And just so all my bases are covered: it's perfectly reasonable to retreat to an older edition when the fancy takes you. One of my gaming pals did it... but then stopped playing altogether. Make of that what you will!

Umbran · Mar 31, 2008

el-remmen said:
Rel has a point.

Yes, and that's why I reopened the thread. However, I stipulated that folks needed to post with respect, and you're clearly not showing that.

I'm going to have to ask you to not post in the thread again.

Please, folks, if you're going to be nasty, just hold it for a while, okay?

Rel · Mar 31, 2008

el-remmen said:
Rel, please check your PMs, because this just is not right for you to do. Don't make me regret coming to your defense.

THAT was defending me? If so then I'll thank you to stay off of my side in the future.

Ugh. What a mess this has turned into. I'm sorry that I ever started this thread now.

WayneLigon · Mar 31, 2008

I can understand the need and want for a simpler rules set. I used to love complex rules sets. I thrived on the rules and loved new classes, new items, new combat modifiers and all that lot. Loved them. (I could also say that I've noticed a broad trend for many younger gamers to want more stability and control over their lives, and rules for a pasttime provide an illusion of that.)

Then as I got older, I came to the realization that was all crap. I embraced 3E and still do, as a nice and complete RPG set of rules that all work mostly the same and seldom at cross purposes. But I find myself over the last eight years wanting more for less. I think the toolbox approach is still the way to go but I want a smaller toolbox, now.

I probably wouldn't go as far as OD&D. The simplicity there is also an illusion created by simple incompleteness. It's something I've wanted to try for a while now, but I strongly suspect it would satisfy me about as well as Tunnels and Trolls did. After a time, it seems you'd go back to the same things that happened when I played OD&D: the GM will spend a lot of time filling in the rules, to the point that you might as well have bought 4E and saved yourself a lot of trouble. That could be a good thing for you, but for me I never could keep the changes straight in my head. In short, yeah, prep time might be shorter but you'll spend a lot more game time arguing about things or trying to do things the rules don't directly cover.

The way Diaglo handles it is probably the only way, but it seems like a hell of a lot of work on the GM and player's part to me, just from reading his posts over the years. I might be mistaken.

But I agree that I want a simpler rules set. So far, it seems like Savage Worlds will be the way to go but I want to try other RPGs, such as Hollow Earth Expeditions or FATE.

Yair · Mar 31, 2008

:carefully stepping over the remains of the bar fight:

I can certainly see the appeal of simpler games. (Yes, I guess my age is showing.) But why OD&D? Why limit yourself with all its idiosyncratic ways and mechanics? If I want to run a simple game, I prefer a truly simple system like FUDGE. One of the best games I ever run was a Matrix game using There Is No Spoon. Simple games are fun, but OD&D for me is too complex to be simple yet too simple to be complex in an interesting manner. It doesn't do what it sets out to do well - it doesn't provide the rules robustness and flexibility I want from a game centering around killing things and taking their stuff, kicking down dungeon doors, and masterminding political upheavals in a pseudo-medieval fantasy setting. I'm not sure what's the idea system for that is. I doubt if it's 4e, I'm leaning more towards M&M with elements of 4e and IH thrown in - but I don't think it's OD&D, and indeed think 4e will do it better than OD&D. (It will have more robust rules, giving proper guidance to the DM when whipping up opponents; it will allow great flexibility and tactical fun for players; it will provide social skills and systems to found poltics on; and so on.)

Victim · Mar 31, 2008

What I like in gaming is the gaming. I like playing games. If the mechanical system of an RPG doesn't provide at least one fun game, then what's the point? I don't really want to play something where the best strategy is manipulating the DM as opposed to rules elements.

Morrus · Mar 31, 2008

This thread is getting ridiculous. In addition, any discussion about wanting to make rule-sets "simpler" clearly belongs in House Rules. So I'm moving this thread there.

Wormwood · Mar 31, 2008

VorpalWarrior69 said:
Was this a skit put on by the moderators to show us how silly we look when we snipe, snide, and snark at each other? Cause...well...it got the point across to me, even if unintentional...

Storminator · Mar 31, 2008

WayneLigon said:
I probably wouldn't go as far as OD&D. The simplicity there is also an illusion created by simple incompleteness. It's something I've wanted to try for a while now, but I strongly suspect it would satisfy me about as well as Tunnels and Trolls did.

Just stop right there. Don't even compare D&D to Tunnels and Trolls. T&T was a joke, and a badly done one at that.

PS

Irda Ranger · Mar 31, 2008

Best. Thread. Evar.

On several levels.

I also like the topic, so regardless of whether this Mod-Fight is real or April Fools, I do have something to say ...

Rel said:
Anyway, my point is that our interests tend to drift over time. When I was young I played AD&D but longed for something more complex. <snip> But what I've started to see is that the stuff that really matters, the fun, imagination, magic, mystery is all completely independent of the system. In fact, all but the lightest systems tend to hamper rather than enhance that sort of stuff. So best to pare things back to the basics as much as possible. It doesn't get much more basic than OD&D and I think we'll be satisfied with that.

I've heard this siren call myself. Since my wallet wasn't tied to the mast I ran out and bought the OD&D PDF's from RPGNow and all the Castles & Crusades books from the Trolls. I was bound and determined run some good, old school fun. I wanted "simply fun", and this was going to be it.

But I found there was a real difference between "simple" and "good." Simple can be a lot of thins. It can be elegant and efficient, but it can also be boring or stupid. There are lots of simple games out there that are no fun at all. Simple does not always equal good.

And in OD&D/C&C's case, simple did not equal good (enough ... for me). I found I just couldn't live with classes that were wildly out of whack with each other. It wasn't "fun" to be the Wizard at 1st level or the Fighter at 12th+ level. It wasn't fun to play a PC for two years and have him die on a single d20 roll. Etc. Even if we don't talk about builds or class-balance at my table (such talk is rare), I know the problem is there and it irritates me.

This close to D&D 4E's release I don't think its the wisest course to commit to any one edition of D&D. 4E may turn out not be as suited to your tastes as OD&D, but it's not like WotC hasn't learned from the short-comings of 3.5E's "too many rules, too much work" problem. It may yet be the imperfect best system. Let's get some "all the rules" playtests under our belts and see what happens in June.