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

[diaglo]

...

what he said.

 

[Storm Raven]

19th century baseball had almost the same rules we have today.

Here is a list of a few rules from way back when:

http://www.gcv.org/attractions/baseball/rules.shtml

A bit different, but still basicly the same game.

Now back to your regularly scheduled topic.

Not to pull this thread too far off topic, but you are nuts.

The batter couldn't move his feet while batting.
The pitcher was required to pitch the ball where the batter desired it.
A ball caught on the bounce was an out.
The pitcher, at one point, pitched from inside a box, not from a rubber.
The pitcher had to pitch underhanded.
The number of "balls" required to walk a batter varied from three, to eight, to seven, and only eventually to four.
At one point you could not substitute players after the 4th inning.

And those are just the differences I can remember off the top of my head.

 

[Gentlegamer]

If you are interested by Old School Gaming and would like an all-in-one package (it's the compilation of all D&D rules boxed sets but Immortals), that's the book for you. I have it and would love to play with it again.

I think it serves its purpose well. It's an encyclopedia of D&D rules. It's very sober in tone and organization, but effective. The book is sturdy and can stand the test of time, so to speak. Overall, really good book to go play your D&D campaign without having to bring all your boxes and volumes in your backpack.

The D&D Cycllopedia compiling the BECM Mentzer D&D rules is the best one volumn book for playing D&D. Aaron Allston did a fantastic job.

 

[diaglo]

The RC is good for its edition of the game. but it ain't OD&D IMHO.

I don't get why people have a hard time understanding... I AIN'T JOKING. I NEVER JOKE ABOUT D&D. i joke while playing about word or phrase choice. i joke with friends about things that happened. but i never joke about the game. EVAR.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Not to pull this thread too far off topic, but you are nuts.

The batter couldn't move his feet while batting.
The pitcher was required to pitch the ball where the batter desired it.
A ball caught on the bounce was an out.
The pitcher, at one point, pitched from inside a LINE, not from a rubber.
The pitcher had to pitch underhanded.
The number of "balls" required to walk a batter varied from three, to eight, to seven, and only eventually to four.
At one point you could not substitute players after the 4th inning.

And those are just the differences I can remember off the top of my head.

How about a source? The only one you have right is the one I bolded for you.

 

[Odhanan]

The RC is good for its edition of the game. but it ain't OD&D IMHO.

I agree. It isn't OD&D as per "White Box" OD&D. I think we get confused on the old school gaming expression. For me Rules Cyclopedia and OD&D are old school gaming, but RC "ain't" OD&D.

 

[ForceUser]

I agree. It isn't OD&D as per "White Box" OD&D. I think we get confused on the old school gaming expression. For me Rules Cyclopedia and OD&D are old school gaming, but RC ain't OD&D.

Heck, for me, the red box released in 1986 is old school.

This was my first experience with running a dungeon, actually. Ahh, fond memories.

 

[Storm Raven]

How about a source? The only one you have right is the one I bolded for you.

Try Total Baseball. My copies have details of the rules from 1876 onwards. The Genesee County Rules that were linked to are not the authoritative version of 19th century baseball rules, nor are they comprehensive (or even complete in the linked version), since the rules changed several times in that century.

I will also point out that some of the things you think I got wrong are repeated in the linked document. For example:

Once the batter assumes his stance, he cannot step backward or forward during his swing; his feet must not move.

For an online list of all the various iterations of the baseball rules, try here: http://baseball-almanac.com/rulechng.shtml.

Check, for example, the 1867 entry, making the pitcher's box a 6 foot square, and giving the batter the right to call for a high or low pitch. In 1879, a base on balls took 9 balls, which was reduced to 8 in 1880, reduced to 6 in 1884, 5 in 1887, and finally four in 1889. In 1887 it took four strikes for a batter to be out. From 1863 to 1867, a pitcher was not permitted to move his feet when pitching. It wasn't until 1883 that a pitcher was allowed to deliver a pitch with a throw from above his waist.

 

[Pinotage]

Heck, for me, the red box released in 1986 is old school.

This was my first experience with running a dungeon, actually. Ahh, fond memories.

The first printing of that particular version, I believe, was released in 1983, but I'm not sure how many reprints they had after that. Certainly I had a copy by 1984-1985, and I remember taking a long half a day drive home after getting it as a present and spending all the time in the car running through the solo adventure. Good memories indeed.

Pinotage

 

[wingsandsword]

I don't get why people have a hard time understanding... I AIN'T JOKING. I NEVER JOKE ABOUT D&D. i joke while playing about word or phrase choice. i joke with friends about things that happened. but i never joke about the game. EVAR.

Okay, I'll bite. Diaglo, I'll tell you why people think your little catchphrase is a joke.

Most people, most gamers, most D&D players, have never played, seen, or even heard of the 1974 version of D&D. At best they know a version came out in that year that apparently spun off of Chainmail, but not anything about the game itself (just that it probably was a derivative of an old wargame). Most gamers I've ever talked to assumed AD&D (1e) or those old boxed sets were the first edition of the game.

I've only even seen those three little booklets once, and that was on display at Gen Con. In almost a decade of gaming, I've only ever met one person who has even played OD&D, and they had not played in a quarter-century. To the overwhelming majority of gamers, OD&D is at best a historic footnote, a interesting factoid that there was a version of the game before AD&D 1st Edition or the old Boxed Sets.

On a message board that generally has remarkably good grammar and spelling from its contributors for a net forum, you say "EVAR" and "ain't" as a grown man who should know better. Hyperbole makes people think you are joking. The louder you shout your catchphrase, the more people think you aren't serious about it.

Claiming that all D&D is a poor imitation of something that came 30 years before in a limited release and most people have only a vague idea about is going to be taken by most people as utterly unbelievable.

Claiming that the current edition of D&D isn't even really D&D at all flies in the face of the definitions most people have of D&D. Your descriptions of a super-rules-light OD&D clash with an entire generation who grew up on AD&D and segued into D&D3e, the millions of people who buy 3e and expect and want D&D to be a game with rules and options for almost any situation, instead of a few tiny pamphlets where the DM is expected to pretty much make it all up as he goes along.

To use a computer analogy, technically there were Windows 1.0 (in 1985) and later Windows 2.0 (in 1987), and even 3.0 (in 1990), before it really hit mainstream success with 3.1 (in 1992), now many versions later, the overwhelming majority of computer users have no knowledge of versions 1 and 2, at most knowing that they existed decades ago. Nobody would say that Windows 1.0 was the only true Windows and everything else is a pale imitation. Games do bear some resemblence to computer software: both are sets of instructions that are executed to achieve a goal, and over time improvements in design technique means that revisions come out that provide more options or better methods of accomplishing your goals.

Thus, to most gamers, OD&D is not D&D, it is an early precursor to todays D&D.