I guess I really do prefer simplicity

[Celebrim]

1e can be easily simplified to some extent without really losing anything:
- remove weapon speed
- remove weapon type vs. armour type
- go to a straight d6 initiative, no modifiers (or, extremely rare)
- back off on enforcing encumbrance unless someone's abusing it
- open up what races can be what classes, and remove level limits; to counter, back off on some of the racial advantages and play up cultural differences instead

You can add alot to that. I don't think that gives the full extent of the simplifications that were in common use by people who thought they were and say they were playing 1e.

I never saw your #5 altering races, but I did see:

- Not being strict about the turn sequence or predeclaring your actions.
- Not tracking segments within the round, or the casting time of spells.
- Not paying attention to spell material components.
- Not alternating attacks when several combatants had multiple attacks in the round, and instead resolving all attacks when the players turn came up.
- Using simplified surprise rules (ei, multiple rounds of surprise aren't possible)
- Not disrupting spellcastering when the caster is struck by attacks.

And probably alot of other stuff I'm forgetting.

I very much disagree however that you can make such simplifications and not lose anything. In particular, I adore the weapon vs. AC modifiers (although, they aren't particularly well balanced, at least the weapons are much more balanced when they are taken into account, and a little tweaking makes all sorts of weapons viable), and if you didn't play 1e with them you really missed out. It took a little bit of extra prep (essentially, I created attack tables for each character), but once that small hurdle was handled combat actually resolved faster (because I'd already added up all the fiddly modifiers) than when I wasn't playing with the rules and combat was much more interesting and 'realistic'. And the very fact that longsword/two-handed sword weren't clearly the most superior weapons was alot fun.

Plus alot of the simplifications I saw tended to make the game less balanced. Thieves sucked hard at high levels anyway, but without multiple surprise rounds of backstabbing, they had virtually no way of handling anything by themselves. Wizards ruled when spells got off in a single segment, material components were assumed to be on hand regardless of how esoteric/rare/cumbersome, and casting couldn't be disrupted, and so forth. The game was just better when you played it by the rules, and house rules made by players that actually knew the rules tended to be better reasoned thought out. There are still aspects of the D&D and 1e AD&D game that I think are superior to 3e, and in some ways both were tactically superior simulations to 4e because they did a better job of making the game resolve in a less 'turn based' fashion.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Your taste is as valid for you as mine is for me, but from my perspective the valuation is bizarre. The only "limitation" is a shortage of limits in the form of formal, preset, rigid rules. The variety of possibilities in characters, environments and events is thereby so much greater.

Again, it is perfectly valid so to prefer the manipulation of abstract stuff of which 3e and 4e require so much. If you really think that the rest of the game is somehow more limited in old-style D&D, then you have it basically backwards.

Limited, crunchwise then. Who cares about limitations of the fluff variety? We all know that fluff limits have nothing to do with edition, so whatever.

But crunchwise, in later editions, I can be a fighter or a paladin or a barbarian or a warden or a rogue or an assassin or a monk or a shaman....you get the idea. In OD&D, I can be what, a fighting man or a magic user or a thief (?) or a fighting man or a magic user or a fighting man or a magic user or a fighter or a magic user.

You can wax poetic about 'lack of limitations' all you want, but the truth is that all editions have that in equal degree. You can refluff stuff and homebrew stuff and write creative personalities equally well in any edition -- what matters to me is: are the basic rules able to support my character's individuality at all? I can describe my fighting man as a skilled athlete or a silver tongue, but if there's no option that lets that come through when the dice start rolling, I may as well stay home and write a story about him on my own. Because at least that way my description can make a difference to the story.

 

[SSquirrel]

Amusingly enough, my group doesn't use the CB and all 5 of the OP's points apply to our 4E game. You can always choose to keep things simple if you want to.

 

[ExploderWizard]

You can wax poetic about 'lack of limitations' all you want, but the truth is that all editions have that in equal degree. You can refluff stuff and homebrew stuff and write creative personalities equally well in any edition -- what matters to me is: are the basic rules able to support my character's individuality at all? I can describe my fighting man as a skilled athlete or a silver tongue, but if there's no option that lets that come through when the dice start rolling, I may as well stay home and write a story about him on my own. Because at least that way my description can make a difference to the story.

I think you are talking about specialization through mechanical diversity rather than individuality. If another player can pick the same options as you and is mechanically identical where is your individuality then?

Actual individuality is not found in a rulebook. Mechanical options are just that. The players can decide how fiddly and involved they want the resolution mechanic for thier game to be and it will always be up to them to make thier characters individuals.

 

[Nifft]

I think you are talking about specialization through mechanical diversity rather than individuality. If another player can pick the same options as you and is mechanically identical where is your individuality then?

Actual individuality is not found in a rulebook. Mechanical options are just that. The players can decide how fiddly and involved they want the resolution mechanic for thier game to be and it will always be up to them to make thier characters individuals.

Without any mechanical support, you can't back up your "actual individuality" -- and the scare quotes are intentional, because I think you overstate the case with that term.

Anyone can write "BEST SWORDSMAN IN REALM" on his character sheet. It's another thing entirely to be able to back it up.

When it comes to social combat, I really like Exalted's take on balancing RP with mechanics: you get a bonus for role playing well (in physical or social combat), but if you just want to say "I try to convince him", you can just roll some dice and see the result.

IMHO both are vital. Sometimes you really feel inspired to heights of narrative description, sometimes you just want to stab that orc.

IMHO a good system is one that facilitates good role-playing, but does not demand it as the only resolution mechanic.

Cheers, -- N

 

[ExploderWizard]

Without any mechanical support, you can't back up your "actual individuality" -- and the scare quotes are intentional, because I think you overstate the case with that term.

Sure you can. If I say that my fighter tends to use the cloaks of his companions as his personal towel I can certainly back that up (or have fun trying) in play.

Anyone can write "BEST SWORDSMAN IN REALM" on his character sheet. It's another thing entirely to be able to back it up.

Yup. Until disproven it functions well as an opinion of the character in question. If maintained after being disproven then it functions fine as a delusional over inflated opinion.

Mechanics resolve actions or conflicts. A character can be an individual with or without them.

 

[Ariosto]

But crunchwise, in later editions, I can be a fighter or a paladin or a barbarian or a warden or a rogue or an assassin or a monk or a shaman....you get the idea. In OD&D, I can be what, a fighting man or a magic user or a thief (?) or a fighting man or a magic user or a fighting man or a magic user or a fighter or a magic user.

From TSR? Fighter, paladin, ranger, cleric, druid, magic-user, illusionist, thief, assassin, monk, bard, witch ... and some more half-baked ones from The Dragon.

Otherwise: A barbarian, a warden, a rogue, a shaman? Sure! A rune weaver, a star powered mage, a psychic, a witch hunter, a saint, an outlaw, a techno, a gladiator, a mutant, an android? Ubetcha! Something more specifically flavorful? Well, not everything plus the kitchen sink necessarily fits into every campaign -- but other than that ...

There is no reason that players cannot be allowed to play as virtually anything, so long as they begin relatively weak and work up to the top. (Men & Magic, p. 8)

The example is a Dragon (in the first printing, a Balrog?).

I dig that you want more rules. Different strokes, eh? I went through a phase of being big on that -- ye gods, the complexity of some rules sets of the 1970s-80s! I still enjoy some pretty rules-heavy games.

I just wanted to make sure there was no mistake as to "what you can be" in OD&D.

 

[Ariosto]

You can refluff stuff and homebrew stuff and write creative personalities equally well in any edition.

Equally well? Maybe.

As quickly and easily?

No, I can't. All the evidence I've seen suggests that no one else can either. In OD&D, there simply is not a long "stat block" to write; there are no feats to look up, or skill points to distribute, or templates to apply. It is quite simply and objectively less work. What do you want in a PC? What do I want in a monster? Done and done -- let's get down to actually playing!

And no, that does not mean there's no effect on play. It means that the effect on play is not determined by someone from outside the campaign (such as the author of The Quintessential Munchkin). Adjudication is the Dungeon Master's job.

 

[Ariosto]

Anyone can write "BEST SWORDSMAN IN REALM" on his character sheet. It's another thing entirely to be able to back it up.

Funny, but I don't recall that writing such a claim on your sheet makes it so in 3e or 4e either. Such an absolute superlative might not even be a very good idea in Risus, The Pool, or FATE.

The situation is no different in OD&D. If your character is 1st level, then it's a pretty safe bet there's a better swordsman in the realm. If he's a Fighter Lord in his own realm, then it's rather more likely that he's the most fantastic fencer.

When it comes to social combat, I really like Exalted's take on balancing RP with mechanics: you get a bonus for role playing well (in physical or social combat), but if you just want to say "I try to convince him", you can just roll some dice and see the result.

Except for the silly "social combat" jargon, that's OD&D's take!

Yes, it is beneficial to have some idea as to what line you're trying to sell and why it might be convincing.

 

[Hairfoot]

But crunchwise, in later editions, I can be a fighter or a paladin or a barbarian or a warden or a rogue or an assassin or a monk or a shaman....you get the idea. In OD&D, I can be what, a fighting man or a magic user or a thief (?) or a fighting man or a magic user or a fighting man or a magic user or a fighter or a magic user.

That's a profound misrepresentation of how OD&D classes are played.

In a game with 4 fighting men and 4 magic users we can have:

• A savage barbarian from the steppes
• A nimble swashbuckler
• A stealthy scout
• A holy warrior for a church
• A pointy-hatted mage
• A witch who consorts with spirits
• A monk who controls the elements
• A scruffy hedge wizard

...you get the idea.

OD&D provides a framework for any character imaginable to be brought to life, rather than requiring players to fit their imagination to the prescribed rules.

In OD&D, the sparsity of rules means a PC can try anything, rather than being limited to its class features, feats, powers etc.

I dig that you want more rules. Different strokes, eh? I went through a phase of being big on that -- ye gods, the complexity of some rules sets of the 1970s-80s! I still enjoy some pretty rules-heavy games.

Yep. There's often an assumption that a taste for older D&D editions is pure grognardism, but the fact is that many of us have gone all the way through to the latest releases (to 4E in my case) and found that the increasingly complex rulesets offered only diminishing fun and more frustrating constraints on imagination