Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bregh" data-source="post: 2081093" data-attributes="member: 9285">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).<a href="http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=9335" target="_blank">http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=9335</a>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).</blockquote>

Verification