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

[HarbingerX]

We played a bunch of times a few years ago and the sessions were among our most fun, most memorable. The lack of game mechanics made it feel very free-form. The game is still fun and definitely still playable.

This is why I like OSR versions of D&D so much better. I don't think adding 'more' crunch actually does the game any favors. I play 5e only because I must. I know a lot of people complain about the deadliness - but for me the game is just so much faster to play and the focus is where it should be - in the world building rather than the mechanics.

 

[Henry]

I have run it at various gamedays, as more of a "dungeon grind" affair, no roleplaying, because it is very easy to roll up another character quickly and get back in the action. Back when I was between 12 and 15 years old, a friend of mine and I played it into the VERY high levels (Expert Set), single-player (I was DM) and we enjoyed it quite a lot.

 

[teitan]

Holmes is one that is a great mystery to me. It's not that I didn't play it, but the set I played it I could swear the elves were handled differently than most remember it. I remembered my set had it that elves were Fighters and Magic-Users but had to choose each adventure which one they were going to be and advance in.

People have told me that this was only in pre-production sets and not in productions sets, but I could swear the copy I had first had this rule in it (the sets I have now which I got later do not seem to have this).

I enjoyed it for what it was. It was more an introduction to OD&D or AD&D (your preference I guess) but somewhat different from either one in many ways.

Yes that was Holmes. Moldvay was the change. Holmes had a blue cover and was a restatement of OD&D that lead to AD&D. Moldvay had a red cover and was a standalone game about a year or so later.

 

[atanakar]

This is why I like OSR versions of D&D so much better. I don't think adding 'more' crunch actually does the game any favors. I play 5e only because I must. I know a lot of people complain about the deadliness - but for me the game is just so much faster to play and the focus is where it should be - in the world building rather than the mechanics.

Not sure I understand what you mean by world building.

From where I'm sitting, with 40 years of experience playing many different rpgs, I don't see a correlation between less rules equals more world building. World building is more a function of the maturity of the DM and the players. When I was an inexperienced DM, my group and I, didn't do world building with B/X despite the fact that is was a simple system. We did a lot of senseless dungeon crawling, going back to town to heal and exploration of random wilderness hexes.

A year later it was a very different experience. I had read the AD&D1e DMG and the Greyhawk Gazeteer. Suddenly playing D&D took on a whole new meaning. I started creating engaging narratives and long term story arcs. This has remained the same regardless of the edition I played. If the DM and the players want to do world building it will happen regardless of the complexity of the rule set.

Other other hand, if by world building you mean, immersion, time spent telling a story and engaging the characters, then yes a simpler system will free your mind to concentrate on that activity rather then spending time looking up rules and corner cases. My mental fatigue level after a game of 5e is far less than with 3.5 and 4e. But even then, once you have played a system often enough and regularly enough it becomes like wearing an old pair of jeans. 2e was pretty convoluted but after playing it very regularly it became transparent and I knew by heart the page number of individual spells.

 

[CleverNickName]

Next week, I'll be surveying the Moldvay basic set. I'm really curious to see how it compares to the Holmes set.

 

[HarbingerX]

Not sure I understand what you mean by world building.

From where I'm sitting, with 40 years of experience playing many different rpgs, I don't see a correlation between less rules equals more world building. World building is more a function of the maturity of the DM and the players. When I was an inexperienced DM, my group and I, didn't do world building with B/X despite the fact that is was a simple system. We did a lot of senseless dungeon crawling, going back to town to heal and exploration of random wilderness hexes.

Well, what I find, and I think is born out by conversations here and on dndbeyond, is that players focus on the crunch of their character sheet and what they unlock on their next level up. They don't seek out non-mechanical in-world improvements as the game rules reward a different style of play. I find in OSR games, because there is far less to be gained from levelling up, player instead are forced to find in-game sources of power. It's not that it can't be done in 3/4/5e, it's that the rules provide an easier route to power.

But of course, an experienced DM and players can overcome this. I just find it's far easier to achieve in OSR games.

 

[CleverNickName]

For some reason, I can't edit the original post to include the latest survey. Until I can figure out why I keep getting the "Oops! Server error" message, here's the link:

AD&D 2E

 

[CleverNickName]

On April 24th, I compiled the survey results and posted them in this thread. Not just the survey results; I also collected and analyzed (to the best of my ability) the comments and "nuance" I requested in the comment section as well. I have linked that survey to the OP in this thread, and in all of the other edition surveys as well.

But discussion continues, and votes are still coming in. I'm continue to collect and update the survey info, and I will be updating the summary soon. Thanks everyone for your (continued) participation! This has been a fun and enlightening exercise in the history of our hobby.