OD&D The Beauty of OD&D

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I'm kind of surprised. That sounds a lot farther away from its war-gaming roots than I'd expect. Don't the war games all go pretty badly if the players haven't rationally chosen their army composition?

So the OD&D modules were all set up to work well for parties made up of all mages, or who had no healing or lock-picking, or any other really unbalanced combination without turning into cases where the party just had to give up or all died? If so, that sounds like some modules that should be worth checking out for some general design principles for any edition. Or was it just that because it was going to be a blood-bath anyway no one got their hopes up about survival (just had them up about having fun)?

Many early D&D modules assumed a significant use of hirelings, so it wasn't necessary for the PCs to "cover all the bases". Nor did rules design really focus on class niches like defender, controller, etc (which are a more modern concept). Also, I think that with early design focus more on testing player skill vice character skill in game, having those roles in every party was less important. Careful, clever play goes much further than party composition (still true today, frankly, but character skill has trumped player skill in current game design -- player skill in more complex rules sets gets more challenged out of play in building the character than in play playing the character).

Ultimately though I think the shift is less about game design and more about gaming culture. Back in the day in the groups I played with we never assumed we needed the bases covered (though a cleric was useful), but that seems to be more prevalent today. I don't know if that's MMO influence and role-based games, or just parallel evolution that shows in both MMOs and tabletop (I suspect the latter).

Edit: Now that I think about it I wonder how much the transition to video games (not just MMOs) has influence the role-based trend. In tabletop for example you didn't need a thief relying on player skill and equipment to find and avoid traps, for example (hence the ubiquitous 10'pole). But in a video game like Baldur's Gate, you only get the flexibility that is programmed in -- no thief, no convenient way to reliably find traps.

 

[Mark CMG]

Early gaming also included many games where ten or more players were around the table of a single DM.

Edit: Now that I think about it I wonder how much the transition to video games (not just MMOs) has influence the role-based trend.

I'd say that the designers who grew up with both tabletop and video games, who work on either, are significantly influenced by each to the other.

 

[Lord Vangarel]

Early gaming also included many games where ten or more players were around the table of a single DM.

I remember a game I DM'd back in the mid 80's with 14 players. We regularly had about 8 but that was the most in a single game.

 

[TwoSix]

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.

Well, these are rarely the same people complaining. People as a group are never happy, yes.

 

[Mark CMG]

I remember a game I DM'd back in the mid 80's with 14 players. We regularly had about 8 but that was the most in a single game.

Yup. Pretty easy to expect one or two trapfinders, or whatever, within larger groups like that (though not always!).

 

[ExploderWizard]

Yup. Pretty easy to expect one or two trapfinders, or whatever, within larger groups like that (though not always!).

Heh. A trapfinder in our games was always the unfortunate sod who kept setting them off.

 

[Mark CMG]

Heh. A trapfinder in our games was always the unfortunate sod who kept setting them off.

Hence, the real meaning behind your screenname, you poor sod?

 

[Cadence]

Early gaming also included many games where ten or more players were around the table of a single DM.

One of my favorite games of all time was back in 81-84 (?) in the local comic/game/used book/record shop. It had 8-20 players each night covering three decades of player ages and (for a while at least) used three different versions of the rules* at the same table. A character making it to the second session was big, making it to second level was huge. I had to go home to make bed-time before the final combat of one months-long adventure -- the final combat of my elven-cleric who was one level from retiring. The report from my friend who played him for me was that I was touched by a vampire and then the lich teleported behind the third rank of party members where I was and leveled it with a 20-die lightning bolt. (* That some of the table used OD&D, some AD&D, and some B/X might be why I don't associate that play style with just OD&D).

A big thanks to @Lord Vangarel for this thread and bringing back all those memories! Even though that game's mentioned in my profile it somehow slipped away in all the modern world and character building. It's back now.

I think you can still capture some of the lethal, just for fun feeling with later editions - years back we took a break from the detailed character building games we'd been playing and had a really deadly 2e Keep on the Borderlands - but you need to warn the players that its going to be lethal and to not put hours into making up their character and background. That one turned into the other kind after the keep though when a decent chunk of the party was attached to their characters. We fell back into the later play-style groove of them being almost fore-ordained heroes pretty easily.

In one 3/3.5 game a decade or so ago I tried to merge the feeling of modern and old. Each player needed two characters, a regular character (that they put some effort into and used point buy) and a red-shirt hireling using straight die-rolls. Worked pretty well -- one player though somehow managed to have their red shirt live long enough to level and eventually become more useful to the party than the regular character.

Many early D&D modules assumed a significant use of hirelings, so it wasn't necessary for the PCs to "cover all the bases".

Good point. It's been a while since we've had a game with an NPC to fill out a missing piece, but thinking back there were times it happened regularly.

 

[Lord Vangarel]

A big thanks to @Lord Vangarel for this thread and bringing back all those memories! Even though that game's mentioned in my profile it somehow slipped away in all the modern world and character building. It's back now.

Your welcome it's been a pleasure reading about other people's experiences and memories of the simplicity of OD&D.

 

[froggie]

I love it this way

Its all player and DM skill. I am biased (of course) since we make SW--but that is why we made the pdf of the book free.

Simplicity stops people from looking at stats and makes them look at the adventure. I can also handle (and do at conventions)--12-15 players easily. Think I had 16 at Gencon, and regularly have 12-18 at NTRPG and Paizocon. The thing is--everyone at my table plays and gets to participate (ok--I may have a little experience at large groups)

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.

Sure its more lethal than newer games, but half the fun is worrying about dying--if the risk is not there, there is no thrill to this. Great stuff guys and gals. Any of you going to Dallas in June, Paizocon or if you live near Seattle look me up.

Bill Webb