OD&D Edition Experience: Did/Do You Play OD&D? How Was/Is It?

[HarbingerX]

That character was attacked in an ambush from a terrible wildman. There was no degree of skill or good playing I could have done to succeed in the adventure. I couldn't reason with him, I couldn't avoid the attack, and the only thing I could've done was to not go on the adventure.

This statement seems strange to me. Why couldn't you reason with him? Why couldn't you run away if you felt it was too dangerous?

 

[Retreater]

This statement seems strange to me. Why couldn't you reason with him? Why couldn't you run away if you felt it was too dangerous?

Random encounter from the DM. We had to get to the adventuring site, and this guy jumps out part of the way there, having been hiding in some bushes. Started pummeling my character with his club. One hit, you're dead. End of adventure. That was my first session with Labyrinth Lord.
Then we tried Keep on the Borderlands. I had a thief. Step into the first cave, instantly killed by a kobold trap. No real way to sneak successfully (what is it, 10% chance at first level? that's like - if you roll a 19-20 in modern D&D you can get a chance to live long enough to see that there are monsters in the cave, run away, hide in town and never adventure again?)
I don't get why anyone would choose to play such a system. It's like a cruel joke.
You can have challenge in a game and limited resources. Games like Call of Cthulhu do that well. But when you're trying to play heroic fantasy or swords & sorcery adventures, it just doesn't capture the feel. I'm pretty sure that has never happened to Conan, Fafhrd, or Elric.

 

[Monayuris]

I have played a few sessions of Labyrinth Lord. I rolled up a character who had completely average ability scores across the board. The only things that distinguished my character from any other fighter would be his equipment and my 30+ years of gaming experience, approaching each battle with caution and fear. I think I rolled 2 HP at first level, had 0 bonus to hit or to damage.
That character was attacked in an ambush from a terrible wildman. There was no degree of skill or good playing I could have done to succeed in the adventure. I couldn't reason with him, I couldn't avoid the attack, and the only thing I could've done was to not go on the adventure.
I don't know what luck could have made my character more survivable, but RAW, OSR games are so punishingly lethal that advancing a character is impossible.
Give a character a reasonable chance to survive an initial attack, and we're on to something. Make a character better than your average kobold or goblin, and we're talking. I don't need 15+ HP to start with, but maybe 8? But when you're worse off than the average monster you're fighting at 1st level and you're often facing the same number (or more) of them, and that's just not fun.
All this said, I came into the hobby at the start of AD&D 2nd edition, so my base level was not established by 5e. Something in between 5e and OD&D would be my ideal. I just haven't been able to find the system.

A common house rule in Labyrinth Lord / B/X is max hit points at 1st level.

I'm an experienced DM in OSR games... my guess is that the DM just decided to have the wild man attack with surprise. In which case that sucks. But the rules make that situation extremely unlikely.

In B/X (from which Labyrinth Lord is derived) monster reactions rarely result in automatic attacks. Attacks Immediately only happens on a roll of a 2 on 2d6. This is little under 3% chance. Surprise happens only 33% of the time (1 or 2 in d6). So using the rules of the game, a wild man attacking immediately with surprise is 33% of a 3% chance... just dumb luck. Sometimes the bear eats you.

More often than not, reactions result in may attack, indifferent, no attack, or even friendly (the opposite of attack immediately). May attack and indifferent allow for the opportunity for the players to use their skill and tactics to either avoid combat or improve their chances. No attack means the monster wanders off.

I think a lot of people who run old school games (or have run them back in the day) ignore the Reactions rules. I think they are VITAL to a fun game experience. Once you use them, you practically stop getting the experiences you describe and you start opening up interesting interactions with monsters.


Personally, I like the punishing lethal aspect. It makes me approach the game, in character. "How do I survive in a deadly environment". I can't rely on my hit points or powers or special abilities to cover up for my mistakes. I have to rely on my own decisions and sometimes I'll screw up and my character will die. My response will be to roll up a new one and learn from the mistake. It's only a game.

That being said, it's not for everyone and it's not something I want all the time. I have recently discovered Low Fantasy Gaming. I haven't played or ran it yet, but from my reading, so far, it looks to be a good candidate for that in between 5e and OD&D experience.

 

[GreyLord]

Another small aspect of OD&D that differs from 5e is that the stat bonues are much smaller and narrower.

You get a +1 if you have a 16 or higher ability score (such as STR) in general...and that's all the bonuses you have to worry about with the first core booklets.

Magic-Users and Clerics cast fewer spells overall.

There are no skills. There are no feats. Special abilities are FAR fewer (in fact, many 5e players might feel they practically do not exist comparatively).

Chainmail combat system...uggg.

Alternate combat system is what everyone used (well...anecdotal experience on my part in relation to that) and it worked just fine.

Greyhawk added a LOT though. Specific types of HD, new stat bonuses (far more similar to AD&D), weapon damage differences, etc. It's like a whole new game in some ways. DM's option on what to add or not.

I had a conversion I made (5e Old School found on DMs guild) as part of a book I created. Most of it could be summarized in a nutshell.

In it, the basic rules are that you only get a +1 maximum bonus if you have a stat at 16 or higher (basically) and the three classes are simplified.

Clerics get their spells and weapons, Magic-Users get their spells, and Fighters can double their proficiency bonus with weapons.

They don't get as many fancy tools as many of the classes do in 5e. It's playable, but a little more chancy in some areas.

 

[Monayuris]

I don't get why anyone would choose to play such a system. It's like a cruel joke.
You can have challenge in a game and limited resources. Games like Call of Cthulhu do that well. But when you're trying to play heroic fantasy or swords & sorcery adventures, it just doesn't capture the feel. I'm pretty sure that has never happened to Conan, Fafhrd, or Elric.

I play such a system because sometimes I want the challenge. The struggle vs. adversity.

Other times I want a more causal game of kicking butt, and 5e works well for that.

Conan, Fafhrd, Elric would probably be name level characters in OD&D terms. In old school D&D you don't start as Conan, you end up as him after years of play and experiences.

Sometimes the journey is more exciting than the destination.

 

[teitan]

Why? There is a charm to the play style when properly done. Sure, you're weak at low levels, but I maxed out hit points at first level for my players. What it does is let the rules get out of the way in favor of the narrative. You aren't supposed to fight everything and you get more XP for treasure than slaughter so it involves a lot more role play and thinking about the problems presented than smashing it with a sword or blasting it with a spell. Since the 80s, in general, RPGs have become a lot more combat heavy, even White Wolf games, who really de-emphasized combat by design, were much more combat heavy than most of the early RPGs. Problems started being solved by rolling dice rather than thinking things through.

 

[Retreater]

I play such a system because sometimes I want the challenge. The struggle vs. adversity.

Other times I want a more causal game of kicking butt, and 5e works well for that.

Conan, Fafhrd, Elric would probably be name level characters in OD&D terms. In old school D&D you don't start as Conan, you end up as him after years of play and experiences.

Sometimes the journey is more exciting than the destination.

But you will never reach that level when you have 2 hp, a kobold does 4 hp of damage, etc.
Do you play these systems RAW, or do you houserule them to give you a fair challenge?
Because OSR games are, in the immortal words of Han Solo, "it's not my idea of courage. It's more like, suicide."

 

[Zardnaar]

But you will never reach that level when you have 2 hp, a kobold does 4 hp of damage, etc.
Do you play these systems RAW, or do you houserule them to give you a fair challenge?
Because OSR games are, in the immortal words of Han Solo, "it's not my idea of courage. It's more like, suicide."

Kobolds don't hit for 4 damage. It's usually 1d3.

They also don't automatically attack.

 

[Retreater]

Kobolds don't hit for 4 damage. It's usually 1d3.

They also don't automatically attack.

The standard for Labyrinth Lord is that "many monsters instantly attack" (just looked at the PDF). And base damage for Kobolds is 1d4.
Kobolds in Swords & Wizardry deal 1d6 damage. And that rules set basically has a 50% instant attack - and that's if they're not already on alert (in which case it's 100% attack).
These two systems are my only knowledge of retroclone/OSR systems, but I think they're fairly popular and therefore representative of the genre.

 

[Monayuris]

But you will never reach that level when you have 2 hp, a kobold does 4 hp of damage, etc.
Do you play these systems RAW, or do you houserule them to give you a fair challenge?
Because OSR games are, in the immortal words of Han Solo, "it's not my idea of courage. It's more like, suicide."

I normally run max hit points at first level. I am also playing sporadically in another B/X game with the same rule.

Otherwise, I run my games RAW.

As I mentioned, RAW implies using the Reaction table which results in a lot more variety in encounter context than straight-up fights. By RAW, 90% of the time the 'ball is in the player's court' when it comes to whether an encounter is a combat or not.

This dramatically improves character survival at first level. When you add XP for treasure, it becomes even more fair and balanced. You don't need to fight to get XP... finding treasure is what matters.

That being said, I have pages of 'Death Certificates' of characters who have died in my campaigns.

The thing is that if you die in my game, it is because of a choice you made.

There are no safety nets to bad choices, in OSR games. If I were a player in an OSR game, I would not expect any hand holding, so I offer none as a DM. That is where the fun lies in these games.