Pre-3e mechanics vs d20 system mechanics

[WheresMyD20]

If you go all the way back to OD&D (before supplements), there are only two(-ish) core game mechanics in the rules:

(1) Roll a d20, add any modifiers, then compare the result to a target number found on a chart using your class & level vs. an armor class or saving throw category
(1a) Roll 2d6 and compare the result to a target number found on a chart using your cleric level vs. undead type (essentially the same idea as above, but using 2d6 instead of 1d20 - AD&D would change this roll to a d20)

(2) Roll 1d6 and compare the result to how many chances out of six something is likely to happen (surprise, find secret door, hear noise, wandering monsters, etc.)

 

[Tinker]

If you go all the way back to OD&D (before supplements), there are only two(-ish) core game mechanics in the rules:

(1) Roll a d20, add any modifiers, then compare the result to a target number found on a chart using your class & level vs. an armor class or saving throw category
(1a) Roll 2d6 and compare the result to a target number found on a chart using your cleric level vs. undead type (essentially the same idea as above, but using 2d6 instead of 1d20 - AD&D would change this roll to a d20)

(2) Roll 1d6 and compare the result to how many chances out of six something is likely to happen (surprise, find secret door, hear noise, wandering monsters, etc.)

Were all the mechanic 1 checks the same in terms of whether you wanted to roll high or low? Were there ability checks? Just interested to know from a game history point of view, as I came in several years after OD&D and have never played.

Anyway, as I see it, that very early approach based largely on class-and-level tables had the virtue of simplicity. The non-weapon proficiencies and customisable thief skill percentages (among others) that came in during the late 1st and 2nd editions added a lot in terms of modelling more diverse skillsets, but lost simplicity. D20 seems to score well on both counts (maybe until you start adding too many different modifiers from feats, items, spell effects etc).

 

[Tony Vargas]

...OD&D...Anyway, as I see it, that very early approach based largely on class-and-level tables had the virtue of simplicity. The non-weapon proficiencies and customisable thief skill percentages (among others) that came in during the late 1st and 2nd editions added a lot in terms of modelling more diverse skillsets, but lost simplicity. D20 seems to score well on both counts (maybe until you start adding too many different modifiers from feats, items, spell effects etc).

Nothing terribly simple about the use of attack and saving throw matrices, though 0D&D 'before supplements' was a period of what, a year maybe, before Greyhawk came out and moved the game away from using Chainmail for Combat, and introduced the Thief with it's % skills. IDK how simple using the Chainmail wargame for combat and Avalon Hill's Wilderness Survival for exploration may have been, heck, I've only heard rumors about the latter...

 

[WheresMyD20]

Were all the mechanic 1 checks the same in terms of whether you wanted to roll high or low? Were there ability checks? Just interested to know from a game history point of view, as I came in several years after OD&D and have never played.

Yes, all of the "mechanic 1" and "mechanic 1a" checks (attacks, saving throws, and turn undead) are roll high.

There is no official ability check mechanic described in the rules. However, it's worth pointing out that OD&D assumed a more "free" adjudication paradigm as opposed to the more "strict" adjudication paradigm that D&D has shifted towards since then.

By "free" adjudication paradigm, I mean that OD&D utilized a method of judging based on the "free kriegsspiel" model of miniatures wargaming as opposed to the "strict kriegsspiel" model.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kriegsspiel_(wargame)

Nothing terribly simple about the use of attack and saving throw matrices, though 0D&D 'before supplements' was a period of what, a year maybe, before Greyhawk came out and moved the game away from using Chainmail for Combat, and introduced the Thief with it's % skills. IDK how simple using the Chainmail wargame for combat and Avalon Hill's Wilderness Survival for exploration may have been, heck, I've only heard rumors about the latter...

Simplicity is a matter of opinion. The OD&D attack matrix for characters is only 8 rows by 6 columns. The matrix for monsters is 8x8. I typed up my own quick reference spreadsheet that I use when I run the game and the two attack matrices, the saving throw matrix, and the turn undead matrix all fit comfortably on one side of one sheet of paper. Those are all the matrices you need for combat.

According to people who played in the original Greyhawk campaign, Gary didn't use Chainmail for personal combat, only mass warfare. The OD&D rules simply state that the referee could opt to use Chainmail or use the new system. This was done partially as a product tie-in for Chainmail and partially as a nod to the fact that Dave Arneson at one point used Chainmail as the basis for combat in his proto-D&D Blackmoor campaign.

OD&D suggests using the Outdoor Survival map as a map for wilderness adventures (i.e. hex-crawling). Given that hex graph paper probably wasn't easy to get back then, it's just a simple alternative to having to draw your own map.

As I stated at the beginning of my original post, I'm talking about OD&D prior to the Greyhawk supplement, so the thief class with its d% skills is outside the scope of what I'm talking about.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Simplicity is a matter of opinion.

Perception of simplicity is.

The OD&D attack matrix for characters is only 8 rows by 6 columns. The matrix for monsters is 8x8. I typed up my own quick reference spreadsheet that I use when I run the game and the two attack matrices, the saving throw matrix, and the turn undead matrix all fit comfortably on one side of one sheet of paper. Those are all the matrices you need for combat.

Compared to just needing to know who rolls (attack vs save), then d20+mods vs a DC from the opponent's sheet/stat-block, yes, determining which of you roll (attack or save?), looking up your stat and your opponent's, cross-referencing them in the corresponding matrix, then adding modifiers, is more complex. The matrices represented unneeded complexity that, 26 years later, 3e finally consolidated into the d20 core mechanic. For that matter determining attacker-rolls (to hit) vs defender-rolls (saves) was (and is) needless complexity.

As I stated at the beginning of my original post, I'm talking about OD&D prior to the Greyhawk supplement, so the thief class with its d% skills is outside the scope of what I'm talking about.

Yep, I noticed. While it's interesting in an historical context, the game expanded rapidly, the first three books in 74, Grehawk & the % thief in spring of 75, not even a year latter, when the game had still sold only a few thousand copies...
... 4 more supplements by '76, with AD&D getting rolling with the MM in 77.

 

[WheresMyD20]

Perception of simplicity is. Compared to just needing to know who rolls (attack vs save), then d20+mods vs a DC from the opponent's sheet/stat-block, yes, determining which of you roll (attack or save?), looking up your stat and your opponent's, cross-referencing them in the corresponding matrix, then adding modifiers, is more complex. The matrices represented unneeded complexity that, 26 years later, 3e finally consolidated into the d20 core mechanic. For that matter determining attacker-rolls (to hit) vs defender-rolls (saves) was (and is) needless complexity.

Attack rolls in OD&D have very few modifiers and very small modifiers compared to d20. There's no base attack bonus and no strength modifiers. Plus, you can write down the target numbers for the eight armor classes your character sheet. As a player, you don't need to consult the table. The DM tells you the armor class you're trying to hit and you look on your character sheet and try to roll the number listed. You might get to add a +1 to a +3 to your roll if you have a magic weapon, but that's about it.

If you convert OD&D attack rolls to ascending armor class, then you have to add a modifier to your roll instead of looking at a list of eight numbers on your character sheet. Some players find that easier, some won't. YMMV

Saving throws are even easier since there are usually no modifiers and no math involved. You just write down the five target numbers on your character sheet. The DM tells you the category to save against and you just try to roll that number or better on a d20.

At any rate, the point still stands that there are really only two(-ish) core mechanics in OD&D: one for attacks, saving throws, and turn undead (using 2d6 instead of 1d20); and one for everything else.

Yep, I noticed. While it's interesting in an historical context, the game expanded rapidly, the first three books in 74, Grehawk & the % thief in spring of 75, not even a year latter, when the game had still sold only a few thousand copies...
... 4 more supplements by '76, with AD&D getting rolling with the MM in 77.

Yet there are still people who play OD&D using the original three booklets and nothing else. There's even an entire forum dedicated to it. The fact that supplements and new editions exist doesn't affect one's ability to play the game as it was originally published.

And supplements and new editions don't change the core mechanics of the game as it was originally published.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Attack rolls in OD&D have very few modifiers and very small modifiers compared to d20.

Nod. Magnitude of the bonus you add to the d20 is not exactly a big contributor to complexity, though.

There's no base attack bonus and no strength modifiers. Plus, you can write down the target numbers for the eight armor classes your character sheet. As a player, you don't need to consult the table. The DM tells you the armor class you're trying to hit and you look on your character sheet and try to roll the number listed.

You do write your total bonus on your sheet in d20, and it's only one number, not 9 (8 ACs copied from your column of the matrix, and your bonus, if any).

Yet there are still people who play OD&D using the original three booklets and nothing else. There's even an entire forum dedicated to it. The fact that supplements and new editions exist doesn't affect one's ability to play the game as it was originally published.

Sounds like the penultimate for the purist grognard, but it doesn't make a complicated game simple, nor consolidating the several resolutions systems of 0D&D, that morphed into myriad ones in AD&D, down to a much simpler single resolution mechanic.

 

[WheresMyD20]

Nod. Magnitude of the bonus you add to the d20 is not exactly a big contributor to complexity, though. You do write your total bonus on your sheet in d20, and it's only one number, not 9 (8 ACs copied from your column of the matrix, and your bonus, if any).

Sounds like the penultimate for the purist grognard, but it doesn't make a complicated game simple, nor consolidating the several resolutions systems of 0D&D, that morphed into myriad ones in AD&D, down to a much simpler single resolution mechanic.

OD&D as originally published is a complicated game? Just because you have a list of 8 target numbers and no math vs. doing math against one target number? I wouldn't call finding a number in a list of eight numbers "complicated", but YMMV.

I think we've covered over a few posts now that there are only two core mechanics in OD&D as it was originally published, not "several". Whatever things morphed into later is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

I get the impression that you might be trying to argue from a standpoint of which edition is better. That's really not the point. The point is that the very oldest published version of the game only had two core resolution mechanics. There seems to be a prevailing impression around here that all of pre-3e D&D was a complicated mess and that really isn't the case- especially when you go all the way back to the very roots of the game.

 

[Tony Vargas]

OD&D as originally published is a complicated game?....

It was originally published as a wargame, but is now recognized as the first RPG. It was rapidly expanded and those expansions generally included (and expanded upon!) in all subsequent eds, so I don't think 'as originally published' means as much as you're making it out to.
Do you really think simplicity is what EGG was going for when he wrote it, for instance?

The point is that the very oldest published version of the game only had two core resolution mechanics. There seems to be a prevailing impression around here that all of pre-3e D&D was a complicated mess and that really isn't the case- especially when you go all the way back to the very roots of the game.

And d20 has only the one resolution mechanic. Yes, pre-3e D&D was a complicated mess, especially when there were three versions of it being published simultaneously - you can't get much messier than that. d20 is not remotely 'simple,' either.

The things that are called out when someone tries to call some past edition of D&D 'simple' rarely are. They may be comfortable and familiar, and thus feel simple...

 

[WheresMyD20]

It was rapidly expanded and those expansions generally included (and expanded upon!) in all subsequent eds, so I don't think 'as originally published' means as much as you're making it out to.

It means exactly that: "as originally published." The scope was set very clearly.

Do you really think simplicity is what EGG was going for when he wrote it, for instance?

Going by what I've read on the subject, I think he was trying to get a brand new idea down on paper. His Greyhawk and Arneson's Blackmoor used different rules. I think he was trying to distill the essence of the two rulesets into a single framework that could be used by someone to create their own campaign for an entirely new category of game.

Given the difficulty of the task, I think that getting the idea across in a hundred or so half-sized pages is quite the accomplishment. It's not perfect, but it is impressive.

I think that the concept and rules of the game could have been described more clearly than they were in the original D&D set. When you get right down to it, though, the concept and rules are actually quite simple, just difficult to explain when you're the first one to do it and there's no example to fall back on.

The things that are called out when someone tries to call some past edition of D&D 'simple' rarely are. They may be comfortable and familiar, and thus feel simple...

And I think that people tend to vastly overestimate the complexity. Much of it is nothing more than suggestions and optional rules.

3e adopted a "strict kreigsspeil" approach to rules that was different from the previous "free kreigsspeil" paradigm. Neither is wrong, but they are different. Using a "strict kreigsspeil" lens to view OD&D causes a distorted view of what was intended by the original author.