OD&D The Beauty of OD&D

Sunseeker · Mar 23, 2014

The problem, of course, is that a fighter that is neither strong nor hearty is going to be dead rather quickly. A wizard who isn't particularly smart or wise is not going to cast spells very well. There is something to be said for over-optimizing and creating characters that are nothing more than a strong arm and a stout back, but there is also something to be said for useless characters who die really quick.

Of course you can always pick your class and race second to your scores, but that can result in odd parties who don't mesh well in combat (of course, if combat isn't your focus this may not matter) and potentially out of combat (such as two warlocks and two clerics).

I don't like the "write 'em as you roll 'em" method simply because it feels like I'm letting the game tell me what kind of character I have to play.

ExploderWizard · Mar 23, 2014

froggie said:
The other thing is that kids (I am a huge supporter of getting kids into the hobby) can figure out the rules and then focus on what they are doing in the game; rather than what their character CAN do, they focus on what their character WILL do.

This isn't just a feature for kids. The simple characters makes interacting with the game world in the first person so much easier. Less analysis paralysis when making decisions and worrying about what ability you forgot about last round.

Yora · Mar 23, 2014

At the very least, I'd allow to arrange the ability scores as desired, so you can actually chose what class and race you want to play.
We're currently playing AS&SH and those three things plus spells and weapon selection are really everything you need. Much more would just get in the way of playing the game.

Storminator · Mar 25, 2014

shidaku said:
I don't like the "write 'em as you roll 'em" method simply because it feels like I'm letting the game tell me what kind of character I have to play.

I found this was much less of a problem in the old days. I've played two 4e PCs (to be clear, I've been DMing for the past 3 years), but I frequently had 6 AD&D PCs on a single sheet paper - because they died in droves. I personally played close to a hundred 1e PCs. So the game picking my PCs was ok, because the game picked a lot of them.

PS

Sunseeker · Mar 27, 2014

Storminator said:
I found this was much less of a problem in the old days. I've played two 4e PCs (to be clear, I've been DMing for the past 3 years), but I frequently had 6 AD&D PCs on a single sheet paper - because they died in droves. I personally played close to a hundred 1e PCs. So the game picking my PCs was ok, because the game picked a lot of them.

PS

I'm really not a big fan of the "make lots of chumps because most of them are going to die." I'm not asking for immortal characters or plot-protection, I just put a lot of effort into them and that's a limited font, after a while I just lose the energy to make more.

Storminator · Mar 27, 2014

shidaku said:
I'm really not a big fan of the "make lots of chumps because most of them are going to die." I'm not asking for immortal characters or plot-protection, I just put a lot of effort into them and that's a limited font, after a while I just lose the energy to make more.

I hear you. I wouldn't want to play like I used to.

I'm just saying the system hangs together. Since you're making a lot of disposable characters it's ok for the system to make them for you. It doesn't matter that you've got a limited font of creativity because you aren't tapping it. The only creative part was naming them - and some people had Bob I, II, ... IX. Similarly, your preferred system hangs together as well. You're spending time and effort on crafting each PC, so you want full control.

It's when you mix systems that everything falls apart - lovingly crafted disposable PCs are no better than system built long term PCs.

PS

Kinak · Mar 27, 2014

ExploderWizard said:
This isn't just a feature for kids. The simple characters makes interacting with the game world in the first person so much easier. Less analysis paralysis when making decisions and worrying about what ability you forgot about last round.

Yeah, our average group age is 30 and we love our simple-to-run characters.

Unfortunately, my players also love having tons of options during character advancement. Those two butt heads and we end up playing very martial-heavy Pathfinder with streamlined custom monsters.

Cheers!
Kinak

Henry · Mar 27, 2014

Lord Vangarel said:
I know had such a eureka moment I might just make the players do it the next time they roll characters, regardless of edition!

Yes, but the minute one of your players rolls three scores over 16, but another player rolls nothing above a 9, you get sour grapes, reasonably, in the group due to sheer dumb luck. If the difference between an 18 and a 10 is only +1 hit and damage, or +1 AC, etc. it's not a big deal, but when in 3E the 17 STR fighter is TWENTY PERCENT more likely to hit than the 9 STR fighter, that's pretty rough. It's like being two or three levels higher than the rest of the group, in some respects. In OD&D this isn't an issue, but in anything since 3E, you're looking at a big difference.

Oldehouserules · May 5, 2014

Lord Vangarel said:
Now for years we enjoyed creating exactly the character we wanted to play through all the editions...

Absolutely. And it was pretty inevitable once people started identifying with their characters and role-playing more, so I don't begrudge this trend. However...

Real life is "take what you get and work within your limits" and OD&D nailed this!

There is a certain challenge (and charm) to building a character concept around what you've rolled, warts and all, and having fun playing that character. From a role-playing perspective, this might actually be more challenging than the alternative...

MJS · May 5, 2014

The " full circle" of class options and skills leading us back to 3 classes with no skills is insightful.
There is a tendency for NWPs, Feats, Powers, and Skills in general to become as much about defining what a PC can't do, as what a PC can, this also being a complex relationship between adventure design, GM, and soforth.
But the whole process (of D&D complexity) reminds me of the Chinese cycles of elements. First you have D&D. The somebody makes a Ranger class...stats creep...NWP's....point-buy stat generation, feats, infinite multi-classing, but the narrow path of optimization begins to feel bland...
...and then a cycle of destruction brings us back to 3 classes, 3d6 in order.
The goal of all this rules cycling is the same, even though it travels in opposing directions.

OD&D The Beauty of OD&D

Sunseeker

Guest

ExploderWizard

Hero

Yora

Legend

Storminator

First Post

Sunseeker

Guest

Storminator

First Post

Kinak

First Post

Henry

Autoexreginated

Oldehouserules

First Post

MJS

First Post

Similar Threads