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

[RedWick]

I think I grok. It has something to do with being able to jump into the game with little in the way of rigamarole. I think it's why I prefer a diceless/dice-lite style of game play.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Letting the cat out of the bag, so those that don't want to be spoiled, move along:

Spoiler

Don't let diaglo fool you. He plays a mean game of 3E, with a very good grasp of those rules and that style of play. I doubt he'd DM it, though, particularly as he's been a smash success with his OD&D campaign.

He still subscribes to the "fun is fun, and [almost] any D&D is better than no D&D" school.

 

[diaglo]

I think I grok. It has something to do with being able to jump into the game with little in the way of rigamarole. I think it's why I prefer a diceless/dice-lite style of game play.

yup. but the random roll adds a bit of style. it ain't the referee who is calling the shots.. it is the fate of the dice...

besides... i have way too many dice to ever give them up.

diaglo "who bid on the ancient d20 but lost" Ooi

 

[Gutboy Barrelhouse]

I'd have to agree about KISS being the best thing about OD&D.

Never saw these guys in the three little books:

They could blow up your gaming room real good.

 

[diaglo]

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.

don't look at it like a Beetle. look at it as a vehicle. whatever it takes to get you from point A to point B.

with OD&D... style is upto the player. however much they want to play Bob the dex based fighting man or Bob the muscle bound mauler or Bob the tactical fighting man or Bob the elderly retired town drunk... that is strictly up to them and the roll of the dice.

 

[diaglo]

Never saw these guys in the three little books:

They could blow up your gaming room real good.

I want to D&D all night.. and party everyday....

 

[RedWick]

yup. but the random roll adds a bit of style. it ain't the referee who is calling the shots.. it is the fate of the dice...

besides... i have way too many dice to ever give them up.

diaglo "who bid on the ancient d20 but lost" Ooi

I'd go nuts if I couldn't chuck my dice around every now and again ('specially since I have very happy dice which roll *really* well).

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

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.

Multi-class rules will be in the upcoming Castle Keepers Guide. I personally just handle it like 1e did. And we DO go back with C&C, back to having fun playing RPG's that is. Something that was lacking under 3.x edition at our game table. Of course all gamers are different and want different things out of thier games so YMMV.

 

[ForceUser]

Of course all gamers are different and want different things out of thier games so YMMV.

Yeah, I'm kind of a mechanics geek myself. I enjoy the robust 3.X ruleset and its near-infinite variety of options; one can craft truly unique characters under such a system. While I have a great imagination, I gain a sense of satisfaction under 3.X by knowing that my character's mechanics and story are in alignment flavor-wise, which would be difficult to do in a rules-lite system beyond "I wield a rapier" instead of "I wield a club". While the style of two fighters can be described differently in a rules-lite system, it seems as though the differences are merely cosmetic and don't really matter within the context of how a particular character's actions are resolved. I like knowing that my character brings a unique game mechanic to the table, be it through spellcasting, special combat manuevers provided by feats, or something else. Manipulating the game rules to my or my party's advantage is part of the fun of gaming for me.

 

[der_kluge]

Multi-class rules will be in the upcoming Castle Keepers Guide. I personally just handle it like 1e did. And we DO go back with C&C, back to having fun playing RPG's that is. Something that was lacking under 3.x edition at our game table. Of course all gamers are different and want different things out of thier games so YMMV.

I'm actually playing C&C right now - with some modifications. But my point was that people will come full circle. They'll want the rules simplicity, but by the same token, they're going to be reluctant to give up on those things that they do like - the flexibility that 3rd edition grants them, for one thing.

My current group is looking at the dual/multi-class rules for C&C in Castle Zagyg, and I jokingly asked if it would be easier to start with 3rd edition, and remove rules, than to start with C&C and add rules back in! One thing you can say about 3rd edition is that it's built on a fairly solid foundation, and you can kind of work with it a little easier.