D&D basic set ??

[RFisher]

The next fantasy campaign I run, I've been planning to use the c. 1981 Basic/Expert sets. (Although the tables in the Expert booklet only run through 14th level, it gives you everything you need to play up to any arbitrary level. I've never seen a PC get to even 14th level yet, though.)

I have the RC, but I don't really need any of the extra things in it. (Although it can be a great resource.)

I still have my OAD&D books, but I prefer the simplicity of classic D&D. (Although it can be a great resource.)

I still have my 3e D&D books, but I don't enjoy running that game. I just play it now.

I have recently acquired a copy of OD&D, & I'm seriously considering running the campaign with it instead of B/X. (Luckily, they're similar enough that material prepared for one can be easily used with the other.)

I have the C&C PHB. If my group should resist the idea of playing B/X or OD&D, I'll offer it as a compromise.

I have also recently acquired the Lejendary Adventure Essentials. It's very tempting to use it for the next fantasy campaign I run, but I think I'd create a different campaign world for it than the one I've been working on for B/X D&D.

 

[Odhanan]

At least D&D Basic (3.5e) introduces you to the D&D game that most people play.

That's sadly all it does by itself.
I was waiting for a game I could offer to my ten years old cousins, nephews, children, so that they could play a few years and discover the hobby. Instead I see a box that encourages the children to invest in WotC as soon as possible.

Every group had to deal with the answers to these questions once, and the answer was generally DM fiat. Now, that sounds bad, but if the DM is trusted by the players and does a good job then it can be fine. The DM decides you should make a "Dex check" or perhaps a "Dex check at -2". If you roll under your Dex you make it. If not you fail. This is quick and simple. More importantly, it doesn't require looking up any rules. There's no urge to look up the rule since none exists. The players also won't feel the DM is "cheating" by changing the rules since there are no rules to change.

That's the way to go. Roll under abilities.
I agree that means you trust your DM. Let's face it : be it 3E, White Box, Cthulhu or whatever, I wouldn't stay long in a campaign where I wouldn't trust the DM in the first place !

I use the Holmes-edit Basic D&D (original "blue box/book") as a supplement to my Classic OD&D (original "white box") campaign.

I got the white box and really want to start a campaign with it. It is for me the most "open" set of rules of D&D.

TO BREGH AND Cie. Using the White Box : Are the rules evolving in your campaign ? Do you come up with ideas that modify the rules, and make the system your own ? Or you try to keep the game system intact ?

I am currently running an OD&D campaign after getting the RC and the ENTIRE gazeteer series (including Dawn of the Emperors, Hollow World, the three Hollow world "gazeteers", Wrath of the Immortals, the almanacs, and Princess Ark) in one fell swoop.

*drools* Just Karameikos and Darokin survived years of gaming with me. OD&D Gazetteers are GREAT supplements. I will have to think about that when surfing on eBay.

 

[rogueattorney]

TO BREGH AND Cie. Using the White Box : Are the rules evolving in your campaign ? Do you come up with ideas that modify the rules, and make the system your own ? Or you try to keep the game system intact ?

The DM isn’t so much allowed to house rule in the Original set, as he is mandated to house rule. From the introduction on page 4,

As with any other set of miniatures rules they are guidelines to follow in designing your own fantastic-medieval campaign. They provide the framework around which you will build a game of simplicity or tremendous complexity… New Details can be added and old ‘laws’ altered so as to provide continually new and different situations… If your referee has made changes in the rules and/or tables, simply note them in pencil (for who knows when some flux of the cosmos will make things shift once again!), and keep the rules nearby as you play. (Emphasis in original.)

I believe anyone who tries to play only "by the book" with OD&D is missing the point.

R.A.

 

[Bregh]

TO BREGH AND Cie. Using the White Box : Are the rules evolving in your campaign ? Do you come up with ideas that modify the rules, and make the system your own ? Or you try to keep the game system intact ?

Here's a link to a thread I've made on another site outlining the handful of "house rules" I've made to my OD&D campaign (and the reasonings therefore).

http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=9335

Evolution is a natural part of the game, and encouraged by the system, I feel--as the referee and players find things they like, they ought to add them to the game. Indeed, this openness is entirely why OAD&D went in exactly the opposite direction, in order to move the game towards something where many options and details would be universally similar.

However, I don't generally modify the rules, as there are so few given in the original set, and the ones that are there exist to give some purposeful framework for a game. We tend to look at it like Monopoly, where it doesn't make a lot of sense that the car and dog, as it were, have the same potential move, but hey, it sets up a framework wherein playing the game is possible, and its the playing the game that we're interested in. We're not looking for heavy/realistic immersion in settings or situations, so the fact that elves can wear armour and wield weapons and throw spells, but M-Us can't, isn't something we feel needs modification, or even justification. On the other hand, OD&D is so open-ended that if a person were inclined to provide those kinds of justifications, or make changes, the system allows almost any alteration and will still perform pretty much without problem. As long as the participants are happy with it all, who else is to say (or, really, care), as long as participants know and accept that things might be very different if/when they move on to someone else's campaign...

Similarly, I don't spend time devising systems or looking for and patching "holes" in the rules as they were presented. I find it tends to give Players preconceptions about how they should approach problems--we enjoy the dynamic of them tossing out ideas and my on the spot determination of the resolution of those ideas. Beside, the broad basics really were well covered in the original booklets, and if nothing else extrapolation based on the spirt of the RAW is easy peasie. Resolution lays more heavily with level consideration, than with attribute scores, but not always. We prefer the abstract detail as it allows play to move along briskly, but still meaningfully, and yet there is almost always a good (or at least significant) chance for success.

The payoff is in overcoming the challenges presented in the game, and identification with successful characters (as each Player measures his/her own success, be that longevity, loot or gp accumulated, number of monsters slain, or making some contribution to the setting at large).

 

[Odhanan]

I believe anyone who tries to play only "by the book" with OD&D is missing the point.

Couldn't agree more, R.A. !

PS to Bregh: Thanks for the link, Bregh.

 

[diaglo]

I believe anyone who tries to play only "by the book" with OD&D is missing the point.

thus why i stab them all the time. points are very sharp and very effective weapons against Normal Men.

diaglo "Flighting Man for OD&D" Ooi

i stab at thee, i stab at thee, i stab at thee..

 

[Mr. Lobo]

I'm currently running and playing Moldvay B/X campaigns. I started DMing a new group with the 3rd edition but it just seemed to take so long to get anything done.

Switched to B/X so the group can get a feel for adventuring with D&D. Then we'll switch back to 3rd edition once people are farmiliar with fantasy RPGing.

I have Rules Cyclopedia - but it's an electronic copy from RPGNow. Kind of unwieldy to read. I have the B/X books and they pretty much cover everything we've needed so far. For other rules that we may need I'll check and see if they're covered in the RC.

 

[Odhanan]

I started DMing a new group with the 3rd edition but it just seemed to take so long to get anything done.

Perhaps I'm just not reading at the right places, but I don't often see this written. I think it is a pertinent criticism regarding third edition (while so much of the criticisms of 3E are uninformed, unfair or both at the same time... but that's another topic).

Combat in third edition is much longer than OD&D. This is true. The mechanics are much more precise about things like movement, attacks of opportunity, timing, etc etc. You need to get a good grip on the rules before being able to introduce complete neophytes to the game. Much more than with OD&D, in any case.