Why OD&D Is Still Relevant

Since it was probably all over your feeds already (and has been mentioned on the front page here), I won’t go into a great deal of detail except to say that the first edition of Dungeons & Dragons is out in PDF on all of the OneBookshelf related-sites. A big part of the problem with having role-playing gaming conversation online (and in person as well) is that a lot of the viewpoints are based off of what people have read or heard other people say about games, rather than experience them first hand. Many times this is because the material in question is long out of print, and the people wanting to talk about couldn’t experience them first hand. As more older material comes back into print (or made available in PDF form) I would like to think that it will make having honest conversations easier. I know that is likely a naïve idea.


Since it was probably all over your feeds already (and has been mentioned on the front page here), I won’t go into a great deal of detail except to say that the first edition of Dungeons & Dragons is out in PDF on all of the OneBookshelf related-sites. A big part of the problem with having role-playing gaming conversation online (and in person as well) is that a lot of the viewpoints are based off of what people have read or heard other people say about games, rather than experience them first hand. Many times this is because the material in question is long out of print, and the people wanting to talk about couldn’t experience them first hand. As more older material comes back into print (or made available in PDF form) I would like to think that it will make having honest conversations easier. I know that is likely a naïve idea.

Original
(or Old, depending on how you like to fill in the “O”) Dungeons & Dragons is the transition from earlier wargames to what would eventually become role-playing games. I like to think of this incarnation as being more like “proto” D&D, mostly because while there are a lot of the elements that gamers without familiarity with the older D&D experience would recognize as being D&D, still not all of the pieces are in place. I think the things that aren’t there will be more likely to trip people up.

Let’s talk a little about what the proto D&D isn’t, or doesn’t have, for those who haven’t experienced it. First off, everything from weapons to hit dice are on a d6 “scale.” That means that weapons tend to look pretty much alike, as do the hit points of characters. Fighters (called “Fighting-Men” at this point after Edgar Rice Burroughs references) get slightly more hit dice than Magic-Users, but Clerics are close behind. A party without a Fighter can hang on with a Cleric or two (which is how games I’ve played have worked out).

The other “missing” component is the Thief class. No Thieves ‘til Greyhawk.

Most of the other elements are in place, and “race as class” isn’t yet on the table. There is a flaw, though, in that a couple of special abilities for elves and dwarves refer to the Chainmail rules.

The issues of hit dice and a lack of Thieves are my biggest issue with the proto D&D. The Thieves are a big deal, because between Leiber and Howard, it doesn’t feel like fantasy to me without a Thief. It also seems a weird omission for dungeon-based adventuring.

In play, the sameness of hit dice and weapons damage can lead to a generic quality for things, particularly weapons. It can also create a weird quality of the characters all having roughly the same “toughness” to them, regardless of class. Randomness is a great equalizer in the proto D&D, and your first level Fighter can have fewer hit points than the Magic-User. While it might just appear happenchance on the surface, I think that the random quality is what passed for “game balance” in these earliest versions of the game.

Screen Shot 2016-01-27.png


Now, I haven’t played proto D&D directly in a couple of decades, but over the last few years our group has played a lot of Swords & Wizardry, starting out using the Whitebox rules, and then eventually adding more detail from Core and Complete as we went along in our games. Whitebox certainly was more Magic-User user friendly.

Now, Greyhawk, the first supplement to OD&D, “fixed” these “problems.” This was also the point at which Magic-Users were forever consigned to having d4 hit dice (I personally use a d6 for them in my “old school” games), which can be good or bad depending on your view of things. I get that the reasoning was probably “Hey, they get spells…let’s not go crazy with the Magic-User” but it isn’t a line of reasoning that I agree with. But the nice thing about the game is that it is flexible enough to take a few smacks from house rules, with only minimal wobbling on the part of the system.

And this boils things down as to why I like playing these older editions of the game. For some, playing OD&D or “old school” games like Swords & Wizardry get written off as being nostalgia-driven. Despite having gamed since 1979, I am one of the least nostalgic gamers that you are probably ever going to encounter. Honestly, I killed off enough brain cells in college that I couldn’t remember how I gamed as a kid if I even wanted to do so. But, and this is probably evident in my writing about games, I have reached a point in my life, and my gaming, where I want simpler approaches to things in my gaming. That’s where “old school” games come into play for me.

A couple of years ago, when a long-time friend of mine asked me to introduce her to tabletop RPGs (after years of playing WoW) via Google Hangouts, I started a search for fantasy games that would have a similar enough of an experience that she would be able to recognize it from her experience, while being a simpler experience and getting away from the grid and miniatures approach (that I am not a fan of anyway). I scoured the internet, looking for things that were free downloads (didn’t want her to buy a bunch of stuff and turn out to hate tabletop) and looked over games like Basic Fantasy and Swords & Wizardry. I don’t remember the exact reasoning, maybe because the Whitebox rules were so simple, but that was what we went with. We used a variant Thief class to round out our game.

Anyway, this is a digression but I wanted to dig in a little and show that what I am talking about is play-based. Plus, the flexibility of the game is a huge consideration. Making up new classes is pretty easy, mostly because there aren’t as many mechanics to complicate matters. Expansion for an OD&D game (without Greyhawk being out in PDF at the time of publication) is really easy with all of the resources that exist for games like Swords & Wizardry Whitebox (which, if I haven’t explained well enough is based off of just the rules from the initial OD&D three booklets) to take your OD&D games in all sorts of directions. Barrel Rider Games does a lot of material for Whitebox that can easily be slotted into OD&D as well.

Even if your plan isn’t to play OD&D as-is, there is still a great foundation onto which you can build a fun class and level based fantasy game that does better suit the needs that you might have in a game. Crafting new spells and new monsters is pretty easy. I made about five new monsters before our Tuesday game in just a couple of hours. That time was going from “I have a cool name” to “I have a fully statted out creature.” If you want to check out something that is fairly close to OD&D (but is free), there is Matt Finch’s Swords & Wizardry. It is a pretty great game in its own rights, and our group has gotten years of enjoyment out of playing the game. I really hope that new edition Swords & Wizardry Kickstarter happens.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

E

ExTSR

Guest
You vs the World

What do we mean by balance? I guess we mean making sure that each option or choice is useful and not outshined by a similar option.
The typical answer from OldSchoolers is obvious:
Life isn't like that.
If you don't stop to appraise potential Danger, it can destroy you.

But if that's the way you want Life to be, then this is the perfect vehicle to fantasize. :)

It is said that in Old School, the world is what it is. The character looks at it and says, 'I need to find my place in it, my role within this realm." If you wish to pursue the Heroic path, your role may indeed be to Change the World... fortune and glory, kid*. ;> But that is determined by both your choices and some random rolls.

Some like to play the darker game. Instead of Heroes, they're Survivors, the 'Stainless Steel Rats'** of society. That can be a great approach, very challenging, very Metal.

Whatever rules system we embrace, we all have the freedom to choose what we want from this remarkable pastime called role-playing tabletop games.

F

* from Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom
** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Stainless_Steel_Rat
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

neobolts

Explorer
Games aren't technology, they don't become obsolete. Just being newer doesn't make something automatically better.

I agree, but I think we have to acknowledge a net improvement to the hobby over the decades.

Why? Refinement! I think there all many places where the label of "better" can be safely applied with old vs new. Many of the design choices made in the infancy of the hobby simply weren't fully explored yet. They gave way to better implementation over time, particularly as designers began to dip deeper into the math of tabletop gaming.

I recently spent some time with Star Frontiers and was scratching my head at some of the mechanics that were clunky but added little to the simulation, even as a wargame. Refinement is also very noticeable in Swords and Wizardry's putting of a pile of THAC0 charts next to a far more elegant Ascending AC "SECRET METHOD".
 


neobolts

Explorer
What do we mean by balance? I guess we mean making sure that each option or choice is useful and not outshined by a similar option. Also things like trying to ensure that monsters of a certain rated difficulty are actually approximately the same hardness in practice.

Yes. And while options don't care if they are useful, players certainly do care. It's so frustrating to be a player that feels that you are not a meaningful contributor to a party. Balance doesn't have to be perfect, but it does matter.
 

Yes. And while options don't care if they are useful, players certainly do care. It's so frustrating to be a player that feels that you are not a meaningful contributor to a party. Balance doesn't have to be perfect, but it does matter.

Or perhaps what character the player wants to play is not as important as he thinks it is for that setting or genre.

I had a player play a lunatic, in the comedic sense, barbarian character. He was put off by how the players and NPCs of my campaign treated him as ... a lunatic. It wasn't a surprise, when he joined I already been running a campaign for this group for a couple of years so everybody knew it was more Game of Thrones than Saturday Morning Action Hour. And playing that type of character can be very fun ... in a different setting or campaign.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

The assumption that is not really clear in OD&D is that the referee will tailor his rulings to suit the campaign.
OD&D said:
These rules are as complete as possible within the limitations imposed by the space of three booklets. That is, they cover the major aspects of fantasy campaigns but still remain flexible. As with any other set of miniatures rules they are guidelines to follow in designing your own fantastic-medieval campaign. They provide the framework around which you will build a game of simplicity or tremendous complexity...
The text seems clear enough to me. "OD&D is a framework; build the game you want from there."

Edit: Underlining added by myself for emphasis.
 

Tequila Sunrise

Adventurer
Thanks for the article and the link, [MENTION=6804772]Christopher Helton[/MENTION]!

I'm unlikely to ever play OD&D, but game history is a point of personal curiosity. Having cut my teeth on 2e, I do indeed tend to lose focus in discussions about earlier editions due to having no access to them. I can't even describe how pre-WotC editions differ from one another, despite reading many second-hand descriptions like yours, due to having only read and played one of them.
 

mrm1138

Explorer
Why? Refinement! I think there all many places where the label of "better" can be safely applied with old vs new. Many of the design choices made in the infancy of the hobby simply weren't fully explored yet. They gave way to better implementation over time, particularly as designers began to dip deeper into the math of tabletop gaming.

This is one of the big reasons why I think OD&D is still relevant today. Modern designers can look at this and go back to the very beginning of the art form, and through this they can understand why certain decisions were made as future editions and other games were later developed. While I'm not a designer, myself, I personally find OD&D fascinating as a historical artifact. (As an actual game, it seems barely functional and I require Swords & Wizardry White Box to make any sense of it.)

I recently spent some time with Star Frontiers and was scratching my head at some of the mechanics that were clunky but added little to the simulation, even as a wargame. Refinement is also very noticeable in Swords and Wizardry's putting of a pile of THAC0 charts next to a far more elegant Ascending AC "SECRET METHOD".

I really, really wish I could go back in time to when Gary and Dave were putting together the combat system for OD&D and act as the little voice in the back of their heads that says, "Look, I know you want to use the armor class system from such-and-such war game, but don't do it. Just don't do it, man. Save the world a lot of heartache, and don't do it."
 

mrm1138

Explorer
Barrel Rider Games does a lot of material for Whitebox that can easily be slotted into OD&D as well.

You're damn right they do! Anyone who hasn't picked up White Star yet is doing themselves a great disservice!
 

howandwhy99

Adventurer
OD&D is king. It's still more relevant to the design of almost every computer game today, and in the last 30 years, than to any present day tabletop RPG. New RPGs aren't about beating a game system anymore. OD&D and most every 80s and 90s tabletop RPG were about mastering the system - like any chess player, sports athlete, or all around gamer. That's what's forgotten. OD&D was the first game players had to beat. The killer core design found in millions of variations from Super Mario Bros. to Zelda to most everything after.

It's solve the game. Solve the game. Solve the game.

Those ideas used to exist in the old wargaming days. Mountains of lost cultural material shoveled over and given rewritten histories.

It's inconceivable how many self-avowed "gamers" think that games should exclusively be conceived of as so-called "group story making" and shame other ideas out of conversations. How much self-righteous absolutism does it take to claim "in the many centuries of humanity no culture of ideas ever formed about games or game design until 10 years ago". This is the wholesale purposed eradication of gaming as a free culture and supplanted by narrative culture.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top