Why people like to play OD&D (1974)

[Arashi Ravenblade]

Well i asked a friend why he played OD&D and he said because it was simple and easy to get into.

Even though i have never played OD&D i can understand the appeal and i even own a OD&D book and even though, like i said i never played it i understand why one might find it fun or even nostalgic. If i had the money i would buy every D&D book in existance.

 

[broghammerj]

I can't really comment on this thread because the DND I played in the early to mid 80s was a DM created mish-mash of AD&D and OD&D (we were all young kids then). I remember fondly the times of reading both sets of books because I just love the imagination I got from both of them.

Our best house rule was rolling for your saving throws. By that I mean you rolled a d20 and set that as your target at the time of character creation. I got a 3 as my save for poison/death magic. That's a great start for 1st level lol.

I wonder if the old DnDers could make a comment on an idea of mine. How would 3.5 DND work if you scrapped all of the minature based combat manuvers, AoO, and the feats that specifically go with them. Would that go a long way to returning towards the "feel" of ODnD?

The reason I ask is a disturbing thing came up in our 3.5 game. Our DM made a ruling on gaze attacks. It was clearly contradictory to the rules in the DMG. It bothered me a bit that I felt so dependent on the rule books (not normally a rules lawyer). Sometime I just wish for a simpler system.

 

[diaglo]

I wonder if the old DnDers could make a comment on an idea of mine. How would 3.5 DND work if you scrapped all of the minature based combat manuvers, AoO, and the feats that specifically go with them. Would that go a long way to returning towards the "feel" of ODnD?

those were in the OD&D game if you wish to add them. attacking with reach. retreating while threatened. charging a fixed spear position. etc...

OD&D did have facing. attacking from the side with a shield vs the one with a weapon. also from behind or from above or below and so on...

The reason I ask is a disturbing thing came up in our 3.5 game. Our DM made a ruling on gaze attacks. It was clearly contradictory to the rules in the DMG. It bothered me a bit that I felt so dependent on the rule books (not normally a rules lawyer). Sometime I just wish for a simpler system.

in the newest edition there is no facing. in other words. you see 360 degrees around you. where your minis sits means nothing. but actions you take can effect things to give them cover or concealment wrt to you. but i suck at the rules.

 

[The_Gneech]

From the simplicity standpoint, I can certainly see the appeal. My own fondness for Tunnels and Trolls is largely due to the fact that all I have to do is assign a monster two or three numbers and it's ready to roll. To celebrate the 30th Anniversary Edition of it, I ran a conversion of an old D&D adventure that took me about an hour total to stat up.

For a pickup game, any kind of "rules lite" approach has definite merit.

-The Gneech

 

[blargney the second]

Here's what diaglo told me when I asked him a related question a few months ago:

i love this game. i prefer OD&D. i find a lot of what i like about the game has changed. when i see people say how they could never do this or that with the older game, i tell people about the way things were for me.

i am also playing the newest edition. have been since its release. check out the story hour in my sig. it is a current edition and still active.

Toodle pip!
-blarg

 

[DreadPirateMurphy]

Just a thought...does True20 have a more OD&D feel than 3.x?

 

[diaglo]

Just a thought...does True20 have a more OD&D feel than 3.x?

i haven't played true20 yet. i just got it.

 

[EricNoah]

I wonder if the old DnDers could make a comment on an idea of mine. How would 3.5 DND work if you scrapped all of the minature based combat manuvers, AoO, and the feats that specifically go with them. Would that go a long way to returning towards the "feel" of ODnD?

I happen to like the tactical feel of 3.5 even though I know exactly what you mean. Too many combats in 2E and older games, in my experience, were "I swing, I miss; he swings, he misses," -- little incentive for moving about the battlefield. If there were a way to preserve the advantage that a larger opponent has minus the AoO complexity, I would be interested in seeing what that looked like.

 

[Yellow Sign]

Just a thought...does True20 have a more OD&D feel than 3.x?

I would think that True20 feels more like a slim trim 3.X/D20 Modern with a dash of Mutants and Masterminds than OD&D.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I guess what I'm saying is that being an OD&D DM is a skill that, if done right, makes for a truly awesome game. It can also make for several hours of frustrating tedium.

I agree that a system with lighter rules (like OD&D) benefits from a good DM. It allows a good DM to shine, and it emphasizes the flaws of a poor DM. However, I also believe that running a system with lighter rules is one of the BEST ways for a DM to learn and improve, precisely because he's making judgments and excercising those "DM muscles." The same is true for players, to a lesser extent.