Diaglo: What's so great about OD&D?

[wingsandsword]

I think that quote was referring to tournament play, at least I think it was. After all he says in the DMG that the rules are guidelines and the DM has final call over what rules are used in the game.

The DMG also says you are only allowed to use Official Advanced Dungeons and Dragons miniatures when playing the game (on page 11). The infamous "Poker, Chess, and the AD&D Game" Dragon article with it's rant of Thou Shalt Not Change Thine Official Rules (not just for tournament play, the article was explicit that it meant any time the game was played anywhere, if you changed the rules in any way it wasn't D&D and you shouldn't call it that) also cemented the perception in a lot of eyes that the RAW were inviolate and sacred, and that the DM was to interpret the Official Rules, and if the DM violated the Official Rules, he was Wrong (it might be his table, but that didn't change the fact he was Wrong). Sort of like the Judge in a court of law, they have extremely broad authority to interpret the law, but aren't supposed to make up entirely new laws or totally ignore precedent (hope that's not too political).

 

[GlassJaw]

How is this different from any other edition of D&D? This sounds exactly like what most of us do today.

I couldn't agree more. I think it goes beyond just a simple and fun system.

I think diaglo just enjoys chiming in with his "OD&D - all other games are just poor imitations" catch phrases in every other thread just for the "look at me, I'm different!" sentiment. It's a tired act IMO.

 

[loki44]

When we play OD&D we do exactly that, we PLAY. In a 6 hour session we maybe spend 5 minutes on rules. Heck, half of us don't even know the rules. The rules don't get in the way of play. The game has a nice flow to it as a result. Take combat for example. Unlike some systems, OD&D doesn't bog down into a tactical quagmire that slows the pace of the game to a crawl. There is no need to constantly track various bonuses and modifiers. It's very pure and very simple, which isn't to say that it is necessarily "better" than other systems, it's just different. Now, there are some quirky things about it that are a little hard to rationalize, like the freak-out effect that occurs if one witnesses an assassin using poison, but those things are kind of endearing. It adds a whimsical touch that I rather like.

 

[diaglo]

Why were prior posts/threads closed? odd.

in the process of answering questions. a few of the peanut gallery got into flamewars about editions instead of talking about the original topic.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

The DMG also says you are only allowed to use Official Advanced Dungeons and Dragons miniatures when playing the game (on page 11). The infamous "Poker, Chess, and the AD&D Game" Dragon article with it's rant of Thou Shalt Not Change Thine Official Rules (not just for tournament play, the article was explicit that it meant any time the game was played anywhere, if you changed the rules in any way it wasn't D&D and you shouldn't call it that) also cemented the perception in a lot of eyes that the RAW were inviolate and sacred, and that the DM was to interpret the Official Rules, and if the DM violated the Official Rules, he was Wrong (it might be his table, but that didn't change the fact he was Wrong). Sort of like the Judge in a court of law, they have extremely broad authority to interpret the law, but aren't supposed to make up entirely new laws or totally ignore precedent (hope that's not too political).

That's wierd then, since apparently Gary never played AD&D either since he says there were several rules he put in there under pressure from others that he never used. Well he's got his own thread so maybe someone should ask him to clarify that.

 

[philreed]

Unlike some systems, OD&D doesn't bog down into a tactical quagmire that slows the pace of the game to a crawl. There is no need to constantly track various bonuses and modifiers.

But you can do that with any edition of the game. Just throw out and gloss over the elements of the game that you're not enjoying. If "Ghost Recon with Elves" bothers you then don't use minis and a battlemat.

I'm not trying to say anyone is right or wrong here. I'm just saying that in the end the exact set of rules your using has little impact on whether or not a DM can make things the way he wants them to be.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

But you can do that with any edition of the game. Just throw out and gloss over the elements of the game that you're not enjoying. If "Ghost Recon with Elves" bothers you then don't use minis and a battlemat.

I'm not trying to say anyone is right or wrong here. I'm just saying that in the end the exact set of rules your using has little impact on whether or not a DM can make things the way he wants them to be.

But ultimately if you are going to throw out so much of the game why play it? When I was trying to modify 3.0 into a game I wanted to run I found that I was ditching so much stuff that I was better off playing a different game that was more geared for my style from the beginning. Then C&C hit and I found somethign that was made for my style of play and instead of wasting time beating 3e into shape I could spend that time doing more productive things.

 

[ForceUser]

Guys, let's not start an edition war or criticize diaglo's opinion--I just wanted to know why he loves OD&D so much.

KISS--Keep It Simple, Stupid. My high school Spanish teacher was big on this. That makes a lot of sense because the game is now enormously complex, and I've personally experienced troubles introducing new players to D&D because of it. It's not a radical idea; no matter how you spin it, more rules = more complexity. I can see the appeal of sticking to the basics. Of course, the fewer rules there are, the more trust one must place in the (I'll use diaglo's word ) referee. I would suggest that this is no different in any game with referees, whether it's football or D&D 3.5. Even with the mountains of textbooks we use, arguments about interpretation still arise, leading one to wonder what the net gain in fun truly is. There's a certain elegance to simplicity.

How do you feel about Castles & Crusades, diaglo? Superfluous given that OD&D is still around?

 

[DragonLancer]

While I love 3.5 ed I also like to keep it simple, but the number of gamers I've encountered who want more and more details (both in game world and game system) makes it difficult sometimes.

When it came to putting IceHaven (see sig) up on the net for people to play my initial design theory was KISS, but the DM's we have and the perspective players wanted as much detail as they could get. In the end we compromised but it just showed me that a good few gamers don't want simple, they want fully detailed.

 

[diaglo]

How do you feel about Castles & Crusades, diaglo? Superfluous given that OD&D is still around?

i signed the NDA...

but now that it is out. for me, it was still too much in the way of rules. i wanted it to go a little further with the streamlining. and like you said, i still had OD&D.