OD&D Edition Experience: Did/Do You Play OD&D? How Was/Is It?

[Retreater]

I normally run max hit points at first level. I am also playing sporadically in another B/X game with the same rule.

Otherwise, I run my games RAW.

As I mentioned, RAW implies using the Reaction table which results in a lot more variety in encounter context than straight-up fights. By RAW, 90% of the time the 'ball is in the player's court' when it comes to whether an encounter is a combat or not.

This dramatically improves character survival at first level. When you add XP for treasure, it becomes even more fair and balanced. You don't need to fight to get XP... finding treasure is what matters.

That being said, I have pages of 'Death Certificates' of characters who
The thing is that if you die in my game, it is because of a choice you made.

There are no safety nets to bad choices, in OSR games. If I were a player in an OSR game, I would not expect any hand holding, so I offer none as a DM. That is where the fun lies in these games.

I don't expect or even like hand holding. I just want a fair shot. Meaning if I'm a thief, I want a reasonable chance to stealth into a cave and find out what is around the bend so we can know if we want to attack, retreat, set a trap, etc. That's more fun than the equivalent of the "rocks fall, everyone dies" OSR experience I've had so far.
As I posted above, the reaction chart isn't in OSR games like Labyrinth Lord or Swords & Wizardry. I've never played B/X, but I do know it's very different from the OD&D base of many retro clones.

 

[Monayuris]

The standard for Labyrinth Lord is that "many monsters instantly attack" (just looked at the PDF). And base damage for Kobolds is 1d4.
Kobolds in Swords & Wizardry deal 1d6 damage. And that rules set basically has a 50% instant attack - and that's if they're not already on alert (in which case it's 100% attack).
These two systems are my only knowledge of retroclone/OSR systems, but I think they're fairly popular and therefore representative of the genre.

The rules include the reaction table for when the DM does not know the typical reaction of the monsters. The "many monsters instantly attack" applies to set piece or placed encounters that are usually lairs. In these situations, monsters will attack to defend their lairs.

When rolling random encounters, the reaction of the monsters is not known and the reaction table is used to determine their reaction (which is very forgiving for PCs).

Even if you are playing in a game where immediately attack results are common, there are many ways to mitigate this danger. Retreating from combat is a key factor, surrendering treasure or rations to cover an escape.

I know players will 'hold onto treasure with their cold dead hands', lol... but sometimes bribing creatures with a few gems can allow them to survive such that they can find greater treasure later.

But this is all about DM interpretation of the rules. If you have a DM who takes the most unfair interpretation of the rules and uses them against you, you are going to have a hard time. The thing is that this is not a situation that is limited to OSR games.

This kind of DM running 3e or 4e or 5e would create just as equally unfair and unfun situation. The rules can't stop an unfair DM from ruining the game experience.

 

[Zardnaar]

The standard for Labyrinth Lord is that "many monsters instantly attack" (just looked at the PDF). And base damage for Kobolds is 1d4.
Kobolds in Swords & Wizardry deal 1d6 damage. And that rules set basically has a 50% instant attack - and that's if they're not already on alert (in which case it's 100% attack).
These two systems are my only knowledge of retroclone/OSR systems, but I think they're fairly popular and therefore representative of the genre.

I was referring to D&D, not LL. IDK if they let you start with Max HP in LL.

 

[atanakar]

OD&D doesn't have race as class.

I know. My sentence could have been better written.

 

[atanakar]

Last year I read OD&D and Holmes editions. We played the Moldvay Basic game in 1981. The thing about these old editions is that you soon discover that they are extremely lethal. There are a lot of random deaths and TPKs.

First, theses games are built for larger groups of PCs. 6-10. That is very different from 4-5 today. It was a common practice then to con «hirelings» (hired fighters) into following the party down in the dungeon in exchange of a share of the gold. They were in effect meat shields (red shirts). They rarely survived.

The Side A-Side B combat system makes it possible for the monsters to attack the PCs twice if they are Side B then Side A in two consecutive rounds. Many TPKs ensued. Then there are the save vs death, save vs poison or death, save vs petrification (death). Death by XP drain thanks to undeads. Deadly traps. Death, death, death... game over. Make a new character.

So, we got fed up after 3-4 games. We had a big discussion. Half the group left to play Call of Cthulhu. The other half that stayed decided to give max HPs at first level and at least half HP for each following level. Players chose their class instead of being told by the ability rolls what class you could play. We started the new module at level 3. I gave the wizard a wand of magic missiles with charges so he could do something. Bought the Expert box set and the PCs managed to survive till the end of the module ! Since then I never started a campaign at level 1.

And there you have it. As much as I respect (and love) Gygax and Arneson for inventing RPGs and D&D, the game is not fun to play if you play it 100% RAW. You have to house rule it to make it work. Which was fine since Gygax wrote to change the rules if we didn't like them.

Reading this thread and various other threads over the last decade very few people played D&D 100% back in the day. And those who play these editions today don't play them 100% RAW either. They all have their own version with house rules. They are playing «My D&D», not D&D.

I did try to play old school again last year out of nostalgia but in the end I couldn't go back to a non-unified d20 system. Instead I prefer 5e. My current campaign has no feats, no multi-classing, only the 4 basic classes, classic races and uses Slow Natural Healing from the DMG. It's as close to a gritty game my players and I want to go.

If you want to try old school D&D (not a retro-clone) I suggest the Blue Holmes Journeyman rules. I read it and its very respectful of the original Holmes edition. It adds what you need to play up to level 20. The illustrations are in the old school style. Very evocative.

DriveThruRPG

www.drivethrurpg.com

 

[Don Durito]

I have played a few sessions of Labyrinth Lord. I rolled up a character who had completely average ability scores across the board. The only things that distinguished my character from any other fighter would be his equipment and my 30+ years of gaming experience, approaching each battle with caution and fear. I think I rolled 2 HP at first level, had 0 bonus to hit or to damage.
That character was attacked in an ambush from a terrible wildman. There was no degree of skill or good playing I could have done to succeed in the adventure. I couldn't reason with him, I couldn't avoid the attack, and the only thing I could've done was to not go on the adventure.
I don't know what luck could have made my character more survivable, but RAW, OSR games are so punishingly lethal that advancing a character is impossible.
Give a character a reasonable chance to survive an initial attack, and we're on to something. Make a character better than your average kobold or goblin, and we're talking. I don't need 15+ HP to start with, but maybe 8? But when you're worse off than the average monster you're fighting at 1st level and you're often facing the same number (or more) of them, and that's just not fun.
All this said, I came into the hobby at the start of AD&D 2nd edition, so my base level was not established by 5e. Something in between 5e and OD&D would be my ideal. I just haven't been able to find the system.

People often forget in celebrating older editions that a lot of things included in later games were already house rules for a long time.

Things like Starting with Max Hps or starting with consitution hps were not uncommon. The same with -10 HP before dying or minus Con before death.
Also starting at 3rd level. I remember reading in several places that even Gary Gygax would often start PCs off at 3rd level and let pcs have up to their level in negative HPs before death.

Also there seems to be this thing nowadays about running AD&D with 3d6 in order. That's fine for OD&D where ability scores don't have much impact. But if you actually read AD&D 1e it recommends at least two 15s for a viable starting character and none of its offered alternatives for rolling characters are 3d6 in order once.

 

[Don Durito]

If people want to try old school, but with a more modern approach, take a look at Castles and Crusades. It plays a lot like a streamlined and cleaned up AD&D.

 

[JeffB]

, the game is not fun to play if you play it 100% RAW. You have to house rule it to make it work.

Though I understand it's not for everyone as a general comment, I completely disagree with your assessment as a general comment. While it's not my preferred style to run the games (sans houserules) I have had GREAT fun playing the original games as written with plenty of Character Death, Maiming and Mayhem, and frankly we often have better stories about those situations than we he have about the triumphs (which are made all that much sweeter by the deadliness of the system). I still enjoy playing it exactly as written because my expectations are realistic. I know PCs are going to get shredded. It takes about 5 minutes to make a new PC , and the DM works it into the story. Back in the game. Fight On! It's a different mindset and playstyle- go into it with false expectations and you will not have fun.

I don't win all the time at monopoly or checkers, or battleship or stratego, but I still have plenty of fun playing them.

 

[atanakar]

Though I understand it's not for everyone as a general comment, I completely disagree with your assessment as a general comment. While it's not my preferred style to run the games (sans houserules) I have had GREAT fun playing the original games as written with plenty of Character Death, Maiming and Mayhem, and frankly we often have better stories about those situations than we he have about the triumphs (which are made all that much sweeter by the deadliness of the system). I still enjoy playing it exactly as written because my expectations are realistic. I know PCs are going to get shredded. It takes about 5 minutes to make a new PC , and the DM works it into the story. Back in the game. Fight On! It's a different mindset and playstyle- go into it with false expectations and you will not have fun.

I don't win all the time at monopoly or checkers, or battleship or stratego, but I still have plenty of fun playing them.

It's not about winning. We certainly did not have «false exceptions». It's about recreating a long term narrative and adventurous immersion with the same character, as promised the XP charts presented in the game itself. The game doesn't deliver on its promise if you play 100% raw, you just die and start over, again and again and again, just like in a video game. Sorry but no thank you.

 

[JeffB]

It's about recreating a long term narrative and adventurous immersion with the same character, as promised the XP charts presented in the game itself.

This is your false expectation right here. You are not promised or guaranteed any of that. If I read a chess rulebook that shows me strategy and moves to win, is that a promise or guarantee? Nope, it takes skill, perseverance and some luck.