OD&D The Beauty of OD&D

[Lord Vangarel]

Our group has recently revisited OD&D on a nostalgia kick and something has occurred to me as to what appeals so much about the system.

Essentially you roll stats and place them in the sequence rolled against your abilities. No swapping, no optimization, you are what you are.

Now for years we enjoyed creating exactly the character we wanted to play through all the editions, obsessing about which feat or skill worked best, what was the best weapon choice, which abilities or magic items/spells worked to get that extra bonus on your roll. Essentially getting a character that was as near a perfect fit for your chosen class, or to put it another way, looking back it's almost an arms race of character optimization. It is almost a game within itself and at times a highly enjoyable one to pursue if you've got lots of time.

With OD&D you can't pick and choose, your fighter may not be the strongest, your wizard the smartest, and your rogue may struggle sometimes with dexterity or charisma but to me that's the beauty of OD&D.

 

[Li Shenron]

I like the idea a lot. It works if the game is not overly dependent on your stats, and doesn't assume anything on the composition of the party of PC. It works better for high lethality campaigns, so that if you accidentally rolled too poorly, you simply get killed sooner and have a chance to make another PC, but if you don't get killed then you should feel rewarded you succeeded at surviving with a subpar character.

Not every edition support this concept of character randomness. For example, these are game systems traits that work against it:

- essential mechanics that require a minimum ability score: I'm not talking about feats with score prerequisites (which in general are a bad thing, but at least they are optional) but rather about truly defining features such as spellcasting. E.g. in 3e in order to cast spells of level X you needed 10+X in your spellcasting score. This is a terrible rule, it adds nothing to the game, it just forces all casters to keep that score high enough or you'll be missing a world of spells. It discourages investing in secondary scores.

- large spread of ability score bonuses: in OD&D your bonus from ability score doesn't get that high, and that means someone without a bonus is not that different; instead in a system like 3e there will be PCs with scores in their high 20s, then the adventures will adapt to them in order to remain challenging (at least to avoid automatic successes), and this tells those with a low score "don't even bother trying"

- game systems which allow too many options by default (i.e. without "investment systems" such as skills) make it so that the one with highest Int takes all the Int-based tasks, the one with highest Dex takes all the Dex-based tasks etc. Not wrong in principle, until someone in the party doesn't have the highest score in anything, and may end up doing not much at all...

- games that assume a default party composition, typically the usual Fighter-Wizard-Cleric-Rogue; obviously if you have to roll your stats in order, there is a very high chance that the party is different from the default.

 

[Jan van Leyden]

- essential mechanics that require a minimum ability score: I'm not talking about feats with score prerequisites (which in general are a bad thing, but at least they are optional) but rather about truly defining features such as spellcasting. E.g. in 3e in order to cast spells of level X you needed 10+X in your spellcasting score. This is a terrible rule, it adds nothing to the game, it just forces all casters to keep that score high enough or you'll be missing a world of spells. It discourages investing in secondary scores.

Well, you had this spellcasting restriction in pre-3e as well; a "minimum Intelligence to cast spells of level x" is traditional,

Also, don't forget the ability restrictions for character classes, e.g. the required Charisma of 17 for a Paladin.

- games that assume a default party composition, typically the usual Fighter-Wizard-Cleric-Rogue; obviously if you have to roll your stats in order, there is a very high chance that the party is different from the default.

Ummh, but, disregarding the sub-classes for this argument, you didn't need the high scores to function in a class. You could very well play a cleric with less then impressive Wisdom. OK, you didn't get bonus spells, and maybe even had a chance of spell failure, but no-one was stopping you from playing such a guy, illing the role and have fun with it.

 

[Salamandyr]

Well, you had this spellcasting restriction in pre-3e as well; a "minimum Intelligence to cast spells of level x" is traditional,

Also, don't forget the ability restrictions for character classes, e.g. the required Charisma of 17 for a Paladin.



Ummh, but, disregarding the sub-classes for this argument, you didn't need the high scores to function in a class. You could very well play a cleric with less then impressive Wisdom. OK, you didn't get bonus spells, and maybe even had a chance of spell failure, but no-one was stopping you from playing such a guy, illing the role and have fun with it.

You're conflating AD&D with OD&D (or Classic, or Basic/Expert). OD&D didn't have those kinds of restrictions. And AD&D didn't have "3d6 six times, straight down in order".

 

[Minigiant]

The beauty of OD&D was that it's mechanics was mostly DM side , level based, and not too reliant on ability scores or PC creation choices. This freed up players to just make PCs and role play.

So if you didn't mind the compromise of high lethality, leaning heavy on the DM's skills, and loss of character customization, OD&D is just great.

 

[amerigoV]

Our group has recently revisited OD&D on a nostalgia kick and something has occurred to me as to what appeals so much about the system.

Essentially you roll stats and place them in the sequence rolled against your abilities. No swapping, no optimization, you are what you are.

Now for years we enjoyed creating exactly the character we wanted to play through all the editions, obsessing about which feat or skill worked best, what was the best weapon choice, which abilities or magic items/spells worked to get that extra bonus on your roll. Essentially getting a character that was as near a perfect fit for your chosen class, or to put it another way, looking back it's almost an arms race of character optimization. It is almost a game within itself and at times a highly enjoyable one to pursue if you've got lots of time.

This is really sad. I remember back in the days when the internet was not cool (USENET, dial in BBS) people bitchin' constantly that they could not make what they want. "Why can't I make a fighter than can do something other than just fight?!" "Every PC looks exactly alike!" And if TRS did a stat block for Drizz't or Gray Mouser that they had to break all the rules do it.

So Wizards makes 3e and allows us to make anything we want. And PCs in gaming/fantasy stories can "legitimately" be built. Then people like you come along and ruin it with all your optimization. After a few years I see "All the class look alike because *everyone* has to take feat X and Spell Y! I yearn for the days when we could reskin the basic classes to be what we want. My old PC from 1e was an more real because he was not some optimized pile of stats!"

Just goes to show you people are never happy.

It double goes to show that Wizards should ignore the lot of ya and just make a good game. (no smiley intentional)

 

[Lord Vangarel]

This is really sad. I remember back in the days when the internet was not cool (USENET, dial in BBS) people bitchin' constantly that they could not make what they want. "Why can't I make a fighter than can do something other than just fight?!" "Every PC looks exactly alike!" And if TRS did a stat block for Drizz't or Gray Mouser that they had to break all the rules do it.

So Wizards makes 3e and allows us to make anything we want. And PCs in gaming/fantasy stories can "legitimately" be built. Then people like you come along and ruin it with all your optimization. After a few years I see "All the class look alike because *everyone* has to take feat X and Spell Y! I yearn for the days when we could reskin the basic classes to be what we want. My old PC from 1e was an more real because he was not some optimized pile of stats!"

Just goes to show you people are never happy.

It double goes to show that Wizards should ignore the lot of ya and just make a good game. (no smiley intentional)

I'm sad that you're sad. Your tone comes across as a bit snarky!

All I'm saying is I'm enjoying a return to a simpler game. Will I play 5E when it arrives? I don't know, it depends if I like the game. Have I played every edition of the game? Yes. Have I enjoyed every edition of the game? Almost.

Character optimization was great when 3E arrived but it became a game within itself. Did everyone play the game that way? I don't know. What I do know is I saw enough players treat optimization as a means to an end. Am I against it? No. Everyone can do what they want. I merely expressed an opinion that I saw the beauty once more in the simplicity of the original game.

 

[Lord Vangarel]

The beauty of OD&D was that it's mechanics was mostly DM side , level based, and not too reliant on ability scores or PC creation choices. This freed up players to just make PCs and role play.

So if you didn't mind the compromise of high lethality, leaning heavy on the DM's skills, and loss of character customization, OD&D is just great.

I've been a DM for over 30 years so am more than happy. As for customization it's easy enough to add some options back in, the RC has optional rules for skills in the basic game and more advanced options as characters progress. The beauty I saw was you don't necessarily have to have an excellent stat to be a viable character in this edition.

 

[Minigiant]

I've been a DM for over 30 years so am more than happy. As for customization it's easy enough to add some options back in, the RC has optional rules for skills in the basic game and more advanced options as characters progress. The beauty I saw was you don't necessarily have to have an excellent stat to be a viable character in this edition.

That was because stats didn't do much back then and players could neither control them or increase them manually. A PC's power came from their level and item drops. You didnt need 18 strength, you could function well with 14 or 15 because you didnt get much from the gap. A lot of OD&D's mechanics barely factored ability modifiers or scores into their results that much.

As the ability scores began to matter more in play, optimization of them came in.

 

[amerigoV]

I'm sad that you're sad. Your tone comes across as a bit snarky!

All I'm saying is I'm enjoying a return to a simpler game. Will I play 5E when it arrives? I don't know, it depends if I like the game. Have I played every edition of the game? Yes. Have I enjoyed every edition of the game? Almost.

Character optimization was great when 3E arrived but it became a game within itself. Did everyone play the game that way? I don't know. What I do know is I saw enough players treat optimization as a means to an end. Am I against it? No. Everyone can do what they want. I merely expressed an opinion that I saw the beauty once more in the simplicity of the original game.

Its a bit grumpier than I intended. But I do find it funny about that many have come full circle in that sense.


Enjoy the ride under OD&D! And get off my lawn!