Back in the day...

[diaglo]

How do I know that someone's a thief?

how do you know when someone is not telling the truth? how do you know what the price of tea in china is? how do you know....


you have to play the game.

no one walks around with a sign on them (even in today's d02 game) that says... Str 12, Int 11... Level 3... 14hp ... etc...

 

[Ourph]

But I can ignore the book and make house-rules in any system, so I don't see much of a difference, there.

The difference is, you can cross out the underlined part for OD&D.

 

[Aaron L]

You know, I think I'm going to make a smart alecy and insulting catch phrase about OD&D, and a disparaging play on the name of the system, and repeat them ad naseaum on every thread even tangentially related.

 

[Aaron L]

It's entirely limited from one point of view. It's completely unlimited from another point of view. To those who confine their conception of their character to what's on the character sheet, it's limiting. To those who see the limits of having too much stuff on the character sheet, it's completely unlimited. Maybe I'm getting too zen here...

Lacking rules on a given subject DOES NOT equate to including it by lack of discluding it. I can take the most horrid and horribly lacking system concieved and say it "includes" everything that aren't covered in the rules. It still won't make it true. By this definitoin, rock paper scissors is the by far the best and most complete RPG system ever devised because it has no rules for anything!!! Why don't you play it?

When one of my players complained about there being no elvish thief class in my B/X D&D campaign, I told him that if he wanted to be an elvish thief, he should be an elf that steals stuff. He quickly realized that infravision plus such spells as Sleep, Ventriloquism, Levitation, and ESP makes for a very effective thief, even if he isn't actually a "thief".

R.A.

I believe this is called "scooby doo"ing a a character, cramming a concept into a system that doesn't support it. And it is a poor, poor substitue for having actual rules for an elf who learns thief skills, instead of saying "but you can still be a thief, you can steal anything you want! You just can't learn to sneak or hide... because the rules don't allow it. But they are still the best rules."

 

[maddman75]

What we're coming to here is a the difference between rules-light games like OD&D and rules heavy games like 3e. Basically the philosophy of rules heavy is that its better to have the rule and not need it than need the rule and not have it. In my old age I'm getting lazier about having to know piddly details, so I have more and more sympathy for the rules-light perspective: Its better to not have the rule and just make it up on the spot than have the rule somewhere in the 3' high stack of books and stop the game to look it up.

I never played OD&D, but I can see easily how you could have a character who steals stuff without a thief class. The DM would just give you a Dex check, or some % chance to sneak past someone or filch an item. THere's a lot of games now that are even lighter than OD&D. Its just a matter of taste.

 

[buzz]

...rules-light games like OD&D...

Not to open a chest of rot grubs, but is OD&D really "rules-lite"? Or do you just mean "lite among those RPGs called D&D"?

 

[Aaron L]

In my old age I'm getting lazier about having to know piddly details, so I have more and more sympathy for the rules-light perspective: Its better to not have the rule and just make it up on the spot than have the rule somewhere in the 3' high stack of books and stop the game to look it up.
Its just a matter of taste.

I'd say that disregarding an existing rule is MUCH easier than using a consistent set of made up on the fly rules to cover undocumented situations. Less remembering and/or writing at the very least.

 

[maddman75]

Not to open a chest of rot grubs, but is OD&D really "rules-lite"? Or do you just mean "lite among those RPGs called D&D"?

Rules light enough. I know its no Sorcerer or My Life with Master or whatnot, but to me its rules light. I also consider cinematic unisystem to be Rules-Light. On that scale, oD&D definately is. AD&D and 3e are rules-heavy.

 

[rogueattorney]

Lacking rules on a given subject DOES NOT equate to including it by lack of discluding it.

Actually, in the context of character abilities, which is what we were talking about, I would disagree with you. Too many role-players of modern games confine their actions to what's on their character sheet, looking for the answer somewhere in their skills, feets, manuevers, or whatever the system of the day is calling it. I've seen too many players not think their character can climb a wall or swim or ride a horse or whatever because it wasn't on the character sheet. Is that a player problem? Yes. But one I believe is exacerbated by the "be all end all" system contained in 900 pages of core rules.

I can take the most horrid and horribly lacking system concieved and say it "includes" everything that aren't covered in the rules. It still won't make it true.

You can say whatever you like. But the proof is in the pudding. I and many others have been playing B/X D&D for 20+ years. Others have been playing OD&D for 30+ years. We seem to get bye O.K. However "horrid and horribly lacking" the system might be, I have yet to find myself unable to resolve a PC action for lack of resolution mechanism.

By this definitoin, rock paper scissors is the by far the best and most complete RPG system ever devised because it has no rules for anything!!! Why don't you play it?

Because R.P.S. players are unmitigated munchkins. Who'd want to game with those uber-geeks. I tried to get into R.P.S. back at Gen-Con in '88, but the R.P.S.-master was such a tool. Besides, it's gone too commercial. None of the supplements put out since the 1992 were any good. Except maybe Fisto's Complete Guide to Rocks, Pebbles, and Boulders. I've exported a lot in that book to my weekly Tic Tac Toe games.

I believe this is called "scooby doo"ing a a character, cramming a concept into a system that doesn't support it.

We always called it "role-playing".

And it is a poor, poor substitue for having actual rules for an elf who learns thief skills, instead of saying "but you can still be a thief, you can steal anything you want! You just can't learn to sneak or hide... because the rules don't allow it. But they are still the best rules."

We're apparently on such a different wave-length when it comes to rules, that I'm not even sure how to respond to this. Why does there need to be rules for it in the first place? If the player wants the set of abilities that comes with being a thief, he should be a thief. If he wants the set of abilities that comes with being an elf, he should be an elf. If he doesn't want to play the game, he should play a different game.

R.A.

 

[rogueattorney]

Not to open a chest of rot grubs, but is OD&D really "rules-lite"? Or do you just mean "lite among those RPGs called D&D"?

By way of comparison: 3.5e DMG + PHB + MM = 960 pages. Original booklets + Supplements I, II, II =~ 360 pages. B/X D&D (depending on which printing) =~ 130 pages. 1e DMG + PHB + MM = 476 pages.

B/X D&D is the only one I'd call rules light. Once you add the Companion and Master set or start using the Rules Cyclopedia, I'd say that you were moving into the realm of rules heavy.

OD&D can be rules light, if just using the original box and Supp I, but once adding everything from Blackmoor and Eldritch Wizardry becomes less so. (But did anyone actually add everything from Blackmoor and Eldritch Wizardry?)

R.A.