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

[mearls]

I sometimes have the urge to run a 1e game, and in the past few years I've run a few sessions of 1e and the rules from the 1978 Basic Set. There were a few things that stand out as appealing:

* Control: When the DM makes up lots of rules, there's no book there to contradict. Thus, the DM has a lot more control over the game. But I think this is a minor point. It's easier to DM with confidence if you know that you are the final arbiter of rules, but I don't think that's the biggest reason for retro gaming.

The bigger point, IME, is:

* The Power to Improvise: When you have to improvise rules on the fly, or sit down and create house rules, it's a lot easier to build exactly the game you want. The most powerful virtue of RPGs is the creativity they require. When you play an RPG, you get to create a lot of stuff. Since you are creating this stuff, by definition it's:

A) What you need.

and

B) Material you like.

One of the interesting things about the RPG business is that supplement sales come nowhere near the heights of core rulebook sales. I think this is because it's almost pure chance for a designer to come up with a game element that a particular DM needs or wants for his game. The DM running a dungeon crawl through a water-filled ruin needs different material than the DM running the urban swashbuckling, political intrigue game.

I think of it as sort of the Grand Theft Auto effect. In GTA, if you like racing games you can enter all the time challenge missions and unlock new cars. If you like exploring, you can wander around the map and find hidden objects. If you like random havoc, you can get a rocket launcher and blow stuff up. The game lets you define fun, then lets you pursue that definition.

1e and other early versions of D&D really fed that urge. If you wanted a game with realistic injuries, you wrote up critical hit rules, rules for infection and healing, and used them in your game.

As an example, when I was a kid I loved creating new core classes. I built lots of variants and loved the new classes from Dragon. So, I designed lots of classes. I think I still have a notebook full of them somewhere.

 

[Turjan]

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.

That's a good analogy . I get nostalgic when I think of a Beetle, because it was my old family's first car. But I certainly don't want to drive one nowadays, because it's too much of a hassle. Of course, if your friend is a good auto mechanic and keeps the thing rolling, I might come along for a ride. I just don't want to have one myself .

 

[JRRNeiklot]

While we're doing analogies, newer isn't always better. Nobody has yet to impove upon the wheel.

 

[FireLance]

While we're doing analogies, newer isn't always better. Nobody has yet to impove upon the wheel.

Yes and no - the basic idea of a wheel remains the same, but comparing a wooden, metal-bound wheel for a cart against the tyre you get on an average modern car, I'd say that the modern wheel is made of more durable materials, helps cushion the vehicle better against bumps, and has better traction on most surfaces.

 

[wingsandsword]

Can we get an issue # for this? I really want to read it now.

Issue #67 (November, 1982), Page 63 "Poker, Chess and the AD&D System", Gary Gygax's manifesto on Official AD&D, the evils of house rules, and the importance of the Rules As Written.

Yes, his opinion may have changed drastically in the almost quarter century since that article, but at the time it was quite clear that the TSR position (and Mr. Gygax's official position) was that D&D games must use the rules exactly as written.

A later "2nd Edition Preview" booklet they put out (WotC reprinted it in .pdf and put it online as a historic retrospect a few years ago, but put out originally with Issue #142), said that they even acknowledged that the official attitude used to be that only by strictly following all rules was a game really D&D and that the company expected everybody to officially use all the rules exactly as written, but with 2nd edition they were moving to a philosophy of condoning house rules and homebrew materials (since they acknowledged also that most groups ignored this official policy).

 

[FireLance]

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.

A selection of restrictions from various editions of the game:

1. A magic users cannot cast spells in armor.

2. A pure-classed cleric of a god of hunting cannot use bows.

3. Dwarves can't be wizards, elves can't be paladins, or dwarves and elves were classes, not races.

4. Humans can't multiclass. Demihumans can't dual class.

5. A gnome could be a fighter/cleric, a fighter/thief or a cleric/thief, but not a fighter/cleric/thief.

6. A human fighter with Strength 14 and Intelligence 18 cannot dual-class to wizard because he is not strong enough.

7. Some magic items could only be used by members of specific classes (certain wands and staves could only be used by wizards, for example).

8. A ring of protection does not provide a bonus to AC when used with magic armor. A cloak of protection does not provide a bonus to AC when used with any armor except leather. (I may have remembered this incorrectly. Is so, could someone post the correct version?)

 

[wingsandsword]

Also, about the 2e preview booklet, WotC put it up for download at one point as a retrospective thing, I don't know if it's still up, but it's 7.99 megs if anybody would like a copy to prove it (and their e-mail systems wouldnt' scream), it is not in the Dragon Magazine archive, although Issue #142 has in it's table of contents mention of a preview booklet as an insert special feature, they apparently didn't scan it in for the Dragon Magazine Archive CD-ROM's. This is a very interesting passage in the booklet.

This leads to another important shift in attitude that isn't immediately obvious: The first edition AD&D rules assumed that every AD&D game everyhwere had to be played according to the rules exactly as written. You could never change or add anything to a campaign without TSR's approval.

The attitude was that all of the AD&D rules were official and absolute, which resulted in a lot of "unofficial" games being played out there.

It's pretty clear that the AD&D game becomes most exciting when players and DMs get involved in the creative process. But at the same time, there has to be consistency among different campaigns and tournaments. When you join a new AD&D game or play in a tournament at a convention, you don't want to feel like you're learning a whole new set of rules! What we did in 2nd Edition is sort through the different layers of play to find the core set of rules that make the AD&D game what it is. The rules form the unchanging basis of the game, the part that remains no matter how off-the-wall your campaign may be.

But we know you are going tomake changes to the rules - we want you to make changes to the rules - so what we did was to provide optional rules. We've shown you places where changes can best be made and how you might go about making them.

Through old Dragon articles, you can really see that for most of the the 80's (the AD&D 1e era), the official TSR attitude was very clearly that the rules must be followed exactly as written, and any deviation required explicit permission directly from TSR.

 

[hong]

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.

Diaglo is my evil twin, and therefore is cooler than you.


Hong "3E (2000) is the one true game, all other games are just poor imitations of the real thing" Ooi

 

[Steel_Wind]

I think of it as sort of the Grand Theft Auto effect. In GTA, if you like racing games you can enter all the time challenge missions and unlock new cars. If you like exploring, you can wander around the map and find hidden objects. If you like random havoc, you can get a rocket launcher and blow stuff up. The game lets you define fun, then lets you pursue that definition.

*blinks*

As I fully intend to quote you on this insightful observation far and wide and well off of ENworld, I'm hereby giving you a chance to PM me with any "credit where credit is due" advisements.

That's quite a perceptive observation.Yanno....you should consider game design as a career. (tongue-firmly-in-cheek)

 

[Akrasia]

I sometimes have the urge to run a 1e game, and in the past few years I've run a few sessions of 1e and the rules from the 1978 Basic Set. There were a few things that stand out as appealing:

* Control: When the DM makes up lots of rules, there's no book there to contradict. Thus, the DM has a lot more control over the game. But I think this is a minor point. It's easier to DM with confidence if you know that you are the final arbiter of rules, but I don't think that's the biggest reason for retro gaming.

The bigger point, IME, is:

* The Power to Improvise: When you have to improvise rules on the fly, or sit down and create house rules, it's a lot easier to build exactly the game you want. The most powerful virtue of RPGs is the creativity they require. When you play an RPG, you get to create a lot of stuff. Since you are creating this stuff, by definition it's:

A) What you need.

and

B) Material you like.
...

Wow, I agree with Mike 100 percent here. These are the main reasons why I used to prefer B/X/RC D&D over 3e (even while DM'ing two 3e campaigns), and now like C&C.