D&D General D&D Editions: Anybody Else Feel Like They Don't Fit In?

[Zardnaar]

He didn't say they were, did he?

He said that people seem to prefer more uniform ability score bonus systems, of which B/X (mostly) and WotC-era D&D are both examples. In preference to AD&D's haphazard irregular bonuses from score to score (with a big dead zone, of varying size, in the middle of the bell curve).

This.

Didn't say OSR is influenced by 3E for ability scores.

Ascending AC is different I would argue it has been. Sorry THAC0.

 

[The Soloist]

Nope, I never feel like I don't fit in. I like trying out the new variations of D&D. To me, the memories of the adventures the characters lived are far more important than the D&D system we used. I have great stories to tell for each edition from Holmes to 5e. It's what I remember and cherish. The rules were just a means to an end, nothing more.

 

[Wolfpack48]

B/X and 3e+ use different systems for ability score bonuses, so I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that OSR games are influenced by 3e in this way.

Is the goal of an OSR for AD&D intended to reproduce it or to “fix” it?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Is the goal of an OSR for AD&D intended to reproduce it or to “fix” it?

Depends on the OSR.

 

[TiQuinn]

Is the goal of an OSR for AD&D intended to reproduce it or to “fix” it?

This is why I like to distinguish whether something is a "retroclone" or not. A retroclone to me is trying to emulate a specific edition of a system, with some polishing up and maybe errata that had been sprinkled throughout, maybe a few standards included. But that's just my particular definition.

 

[Wolfpack48]

Depends on the OSR.

I ask because I actually preferred the different leveling rates for the different classes in AD&D and never liked the unified leveling that came later. Characters felt more unique and it’s not something I ever viewed as broken.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I ask because I actually preferred the different leveling rates for the different classes in AD&D and never liked the unified leveling that came later. Characters felt more unique and it’s not something I ever viewed as broken.

Me too. I have always been uncomfortable with WotC's decision to unify the experience tables.

 

[Wolfpack48]

Me too. I have always been uncomfortable with WotC's decision to unify the experience tables.

Streamlining often = boring. I loved that mages and thieves were weak initially but could level quickly.

 

[Zardnaar]

Is the goal of an OSR for AD&D intended to reproduce it or to “fix” it?

OSR AD&D clones aren't very popular. It mostly B/X variants, tge probably OD&D, then BECMIish clones then 1E and 2E being on the bottom.

If you really want to play AD&D original copies of phb are available at decent prices (more now).

OD&D or B/X not so much or you don't want to use them (paperback or collectors item).

AD&D core used to be dirt cheap. They're creeping up in price similar to new 5E book now.

 

[Lanefan]

I do suspect a lot of people want B/X but with paladins and demons and maybe spell disruption or 18/## Strength or 1d8/1d12 (s-m/l) longswords -- heck that's how a lot of us who started with B-BECMI played AD&D BitD quite a bit.

It's not that hard to approach this from the other direction: start with the base* 1e chassis then strip out the complicated bits (e.g. weapon vs armour type and weapon speed), re-do initiative into something much simpler, pick one multiclassing system and have it apply to everyone, and make a few other minor tweaks e.g. removing gender-based stat modifiers and relaxing or eliminating demihuman level and-or class limits.

* - as in, pre-UA; be vee-ee-ee-ry careful when considering what (if anything) to add in from supplements released 1985 or later.

As for specialty priests and kits -- I'm surprised there aren't more OSR attempts at the same thing, but unsurprised there aren't a lot of retroclones or the like. I think there was a lot more love for the ideas of kits and specialty priests than the specific 2E implementations. Those often ended up hitting too low, too high, too specific, or just kinda out of left field.

Specialty priests are one of those things that sound really good on paper but for a homebrew setting and-or pantheon represent a stupendous amount of work for the DM in order to a) implement in the first place and b) get right. My DM has gone down this road a bit by adding in a bunch of Cleric sub-types and then re-doing the spell lists for each, leading to a lot of "Whaddya mean my Cleric doesn't have [spell-X] that every Cleric has had from the dawn of time?!"

Kits and NWPs etc. start pushing the character-build side of the game farther forward than I'd want.