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

[diaglo]

Which pretty much mirrors the comments in the AD&D books that if you're not using the "Official" stuff it's not D&D.

Remember that TSR developed many licensing relationships with other companies due to the success of the D&D trademark.

Discouraging people from buying things not "Official" would have been a wise business decision for TSR.

well to me. ADnD ain't D&D. it is a poor imitation of the real thing.

diaglo "who used those unofficial 3rd party things in his OD&D campaign" Ooi

 

[Mystery Man]

This isn't the case with OD&D, it's a loose system, but without these lego elements to trigger your imagination: you either wing it using your brains, or you don't and the system won't pull your leg from there, so to speak.

You're on crack. OD&D had more restrictions than anything. You can't do this if your that, you can only have so many levels if you're this class or that race...B.S.

 

[Odhanan]

Nah. I don't do crack, thank you very much.

"OD&D had more restrictions than anything" if you are playing the game as is (let's precise for those on this thread that keep referring to AD&D 1E that OD&D for me is white box or B/X boxes set maximum. It's not AD&D by any means. OD&D, that's the game where dwarves, elves and hobb... sorry, halflings are actual character classes). And for me that's the neat thing about OD&D. It is playable as is, but leaves a LOT of room to make the game your own - that's what I mean by "winging it". There are those thinking outside the box and those who don't: those who do will like OD&D as the base from which their own campaign will spring. Those who don't will find the game horribly limitating compared to 3E.

 

[D'karr]

well to me. ADnD ain't D&D. it is a poor imitation of the real thing.

diaglo "who used those unofficial 3rd party things in his OD&D campaign" Ooi

And I would never imply that, to you, AD&D was D&D. That would be "uncivilized." However, somebody made comments about Gygax's "stance", which were stated in AD&D.

 

[rogueattorney]

You're on crack. OD&D had more restrictions than anything. You can't do this if your that, you can only have so many levels if you're this class or that race...B.S.

Restrictions such as... what?

Level limits on elves, dwarves, and hobbits is the only thing I can think of. What else are you referring to?

R.A.

 

[Gutboy Barrelhouse]

Diaglo - Just popping in like Leslie Nielsen in Airplane, to say:
"Good luck. We're all counting on you."
;D

 

[Mystery Man]

Restrictions such as... what?

Level limits on elves, dwarves, and hobbits is the only thing I can think of. What else are you referring to?

R.A.

I seem to remember level caps on classes as well, but I think that was after OD&D now that I remember correctly.

Then again, don't listen to me, I'm on crack too.

 

[Strithe]

OD&D

I'd have to agree about KISS being the best thing about OD&D. You could generate a character in about 10 minutes and for a DM makng adventures was much, much less workload.

True, there wasn't much room to customize a character (at least in terms of game mechanics), and DM's had to make a lot of decisions on the fly but that was really part of the fun. If we wanted to make a check for something like wiggling out of ropes or repairing armor we'd improvise or use a saving throw and move on. I'm sure it wasn't consistent but we kept the game flowing & the whole point was just having fun.

By today's standards, it's a quaint, overly simplistic game but I kind of wish when 3rd edition came out the designers had more looked at OD&D as in inspiration instead of a streamlined version of AD&D 2E with Skills & Powers.

 

[rogueattorney]

What did OD&D (without the theif) do about traps and locks?

Did the fighting-man bash all the chests?

Were all traps puzzle traps?

Would the Dm just improvise disarm and unlock rolls for any class that wanted to try?

I ask out of ignorance.

2nd level cleric spell, Find Traps, and 2nd level M-U spell, Knock.

Everybody can search for traps. Dwarves have a better chance of finding them, but the rules really don't specify chances. (Everybody gets a 1 in 6, with the dwarf getting a 1-2 in 6 is pretty standard.) The rules specifically state that super-deadly traps (30 foot pit with poisoned spikes was the given example) were "undesirable".

As for locks, the rules state that doors must be forced open on a roll of 1 or 2 in 6, with smaller or weaker characters requiring a 1 in 6. That can be extended to locked chests, as well.

R.A.

 

[der_kluge]

The thing I've noticed about C&C, that I suspect is similar in OD&D (though I can't know for sure) is that people play archetypes - you are the party cleric, wizard, fighter, or rogue. And, around those archetypes are assumptions and restrictions. It's a very simplistic model, and if you want to deviate from that model, you're going to be in a real pickle. That was the immediate first thing I noticed about C&C - it's super easy to make Bob the fighter, who wears chainmail and wields and longsword, but if you want a dex-based fighter, or a sneaky cleric, or a fighting rogue, you're going to have some problems.

The tradeoff there is the ability to create a character lickety-split, which I suppose is great, but it is a tradeoff after all. The thing I've noticed in C&C is that people are clamboring more for options - multi-class and dual-class options, and some more combat variety and options. So, I think the lesson here is: nostalgia is nice, but you can never really go back.

I mean, VW Bugs are neat cars, but it just doesn't have the same features that people have come to expect from newer cars. So, while some people still enjoy their 1962 VW Beetle, you don't see a huge demand for them nowadays.