Thinking About OD&D

[Orius]

Do you have a copy of JG First Fantasy Campaign? Arneson had a system for awarding XP based on gold and treasure spent in seven areas of interest: wine, women, song, wealth hoarded (xp lost if stolen/spent), fame, religion/spiritualism, and hobby. Each PC could have one or more areas of interest, and spending treasure on a category would result in a % of the total value, depending on the category's relative importance to the PC.

That's an interesting idea.

Generally I wouldn't run the original rules myself; it requires too many judgement calls on the part of the DM, and I'd probably end up drawing on my experiences from later editions of the game to the point where I might as well just play said editions. Also, since the original books were disigned for use with stuff like Chainmail, which I certainly don't have, they're like an incomplete game to me. These sorts of things are what led to the creation of AD&D and the Basic game, after all.

However, I like that XP idea. The one thing about 3e that bothered me the most was that XP advancement always felt a bit too fast. And that made it harder to really run the old mega-dungeon and stuff like that properly. However, the 3e XP tables are set up in a way that to me makes stuff like awarding XP in a non-standard way easier than in previous editions. It's a lot easier to figure out how much XP to reward on the fly when everyone needs level X 1000 XP to level up, certainly easier than when the XP is split across 6 different tables. Anyway, I was considering switching to a system that awards the players based on how much got accomplished during a game session, and Arneson's areas of interest could add an interesting twist to awarding XP like that. The downside is that players who are less into in-depth RPing could end up feeling left out, since XP awards like this come close to RP awards in some ways.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Generally I wouldn't run the original rules myself; it requires too many judgement calls on the part of the DM, and I'd probably end up drawing on my experiences from later editions of the game to the point where I might as well just play said editions.

Yes, if you're mainly aiming at "by the book" traditional D&D, AD&D (or B/X) would be a better pick. For me, a great deal of the fun of OD&D is creating my own D&D that's still firmly grounded in "traditional D&D." Part of the fun is taking it in different directions (to some extent) and "filling in the gaps." I talk about that in my making the game your own musing.

However, I like that XP idea.

You can also check out the Dragon #10 article, Orgies, Inc

 

[Orius]

You can also check out the Dragon #10 article, Orgies, Inc

Some interesting ideas there, but it's based on the really old rule where gold was the most significant source of XP in the game. Since most of my rulebooks are 2e with a small collection of 3e stuff, I probably wouldn't be running the game that way; that XP rule was already being phased out in 2e.

Also, I don't really like some of the dynamics behind the rule. What happened is that the players would try to get as much money as possible, so the DM tried to come up with gp sinks to drain away the cash. And the result was a vicious circle of adventuring and spending. This article does kind of deal with that by awarding XP for spending rather than finding gp. But this sort of thing also tied in with training rules, which eventually made less and less sense to me.

The level training rules (at least the optional rule in the 2e DMG that required training from an NPC at least one level higher, don't know how much of it was based on 1e) are okay on the lower levels but they make less and less sense as one approaches name levels. Because logically, where are they going to find NPCs with a high enough level to train them? Besides, once you get up to those high levels, NPCs like say Mordenkainen, Elminster and the like have better things to do with their time than help you level up. And some people hate the very existance of NPCs that are always of a higher level thsan the PCs could ever hope to attain.

In my 3e campaigns I did require training for new skills and most feats which made better logical sense to me (and it also gave me a way to relegate optional feats to more remote areas of the campaign, requiring some work on the parts of the PCs to pick those abilities up), and I would continue to use rules like that in future campaigns for stuff that isn't necessarily level-based. Wizards would also have to seek out rare spells and I've been working on similiar ideas for now cleric spells.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

A musing on the use of burning oil.

 

[Orius]

Ah yes, nothing says classic D&D like bruning oil/Greek fire/alchemist's fire or whatever you use.