Im getting OD&D on friday..What can I expect?

[pemerton]

So..I will try to do justice to all the information every one was gracious to provide for me.

while there is only one oD&D, there are alot of editions that came out after it, each with some of there own rule sets expanded on..In a way it is like 3.0 to 3.5. (IN A WAY) So, because oD&D used their own rules in each game anyway, I cant really go wrong with any of the rulebooks. (Except RC, which multiple reports say its horrible written and/or Edited)

I'm not entirely clear on what you are looking for from OD&D - any of the editions mentioned in this thread (white/brown box, Holmes, Moldvay/Cook, Mentzer) will give you a game that is mechanically lighter than D&D 3E and requires more GM adjudication/judgement.

In terms of ease of play, though, I wouldn't recommend white/brown box. Those rules are horrible to read. Moldvay/Cook is a pleasure to read, and tends to produce a somewhat light-hearted relaxed game (that is not to say it couldn't be used for a more serious game).

I don't know the Mentzer rules outside the context of the RC. I gather its Basic rules are, in content, very similar to Moldvay. A good review of them on RPGnet is here.

By the way, I don't see the RC as horribly written or edited. It is a pretty good book, and I think provides a pretty playable game, although mechanically more complex than Moldvay/Cook. (But less than 3E D&D - I'd say about the same as AD&D 1E, but with much more clearly written mechanics.)

My next question is about Classes.

Do RC, D/X. Or CD&D cover more then the three classes? If not, is there a 'magic bullet' Class Cyclopedia? Or do I have to buy up other Supplements?

I think you are looking for a degree of definitiveness that OD&D and its descendants do not provide. For an interesting discussion of the history and flavour of early D&D gameplay, see here.

 

[DungeonMaester]

Thanks every one for all the information.

Perhaps I am not being clear, but if I am not, its because my style of learning does not mesh with the internet. I can read through a bunch of stuff and comprehend it well, instead I tend to have sort of 'Spread sheet' to organize information. When i have a hard time comprehending, I have a hard time relaying my thoughts. Its sort of like a traffic jam...No one gets through.

I keep thinking that if I am going to run a oD&D campaign, I should have the rule set most resembling oD&D since getting a box sex is impossible for me at the moment. What has stopped me from buying thus far is that complex.

Putting CD&D, RC, and B/X aside for the moment, I am to understand by posters that AD&D 1st ED is OD&D with most of the supplements. I have read only a little way through it, and based off what information I have received from poster compared to what I have read so far, this is true. So, in till I can sort through the tangled web of Who published what, and why they included the rules they did, I will try running it for a while.

Sorry for a short post, but I only had a half hour lunch break to post. I may be back on later tonight to continue trying to understand it all.

Thanks.

---Rusty

 

[thedungeondelver]

Putting CD&D, RC, and B/X aside for the moment, I am to understand by posters that AD&D 1st ED is OD&D with most of the supplements. I have read only a little way through it, and based off what information I have received from poster compared to what I have read so far, this is true. So, in till I can sort through the tangled web of Who published what, and why they included the rules they did, I will try running it for a while.

Yes and no. There is a great deal of rules clarification in early core AD&D (and some rules were made more complex as well). With that said there is much that wasn't included in AD&D from the supplements. Dave Arneson's assassins-are-true-neutral, psionics were changed somewhat, alignments went from three to nine - a lot of "optional" material discussed in THE STRATEGIC REVIEW and THE DRAGON became by the book. The methodologies outlined in supplemental material were brought to the forefront in AD&D but many of the actual formulas changed.

Example: in SUPPLEMENT I: GREYHAWK a new method of assigning XP rewards per monsters overcome is proposed, based on hit dice and any additional "special" abilities a monster might have (spells, psionics, poison, additional attacks like breath weapons or the crush attack of a werebear, etc.). In THE DUNGEON MASTERS GUIDE this is brought over but in a more granular form: now we have XP by monster's hit dice, plus per hit-point according to hit dice (an up to 1 HD monster awards 1 XP per HP, a 2HD 2, and so forth) and awards are now given for exceptional abilities as well. Thus dragons get an additional XP value based on their special abilities (multiple attacks, breath weapon attack) and another for exceptional abilities (spellcasting and, in the case of some dragons, innate invisibility detection and ESP).

It is beyond the scope of a simple post in a web-forum to give any real depth to a discussion about the differences between D&D and AD&D; the best recommendation I can make is this: play D&D for a while. Introduce other elements such as the supplements and THE STRATEGIC REVIEW and THE DRAGON. Work forward adding as you see fit. One of two things will happen: either you will create a workable whole that suits you and your group perfectly and you'll have such a "groove" that you won't feel the need to move to AD&D, or you'll reach a point at which chasing data across four supplements, countless printouts from the abovementioned magazines and two disparate combat system rulebooks (CHAINMAIL and SWORDS & SPELLS) becomes a maddening task and you'll wish to simplify by jumping to AD&D and having everything under one roof.

Whichever system you elect to use, or if you hybridize between the two, I feel that you'll have one of the the richest D&D gaming experiences one can either as player or DM

 

[thedungeondelver]

...getting a box sex is impossible for me at the moment.

Also, you might consider giving up D&D if that's what you're after.

 

[DungeonMaester]

Also, you might consider giving up D&D if that's what you're after.

Too late. I have play tested through AD&D 1st. ed. and I loved it. The only house rules I decided to add are rather minor:

Diaglo's Stat chart with my own HR touch.
Bards are fine
Inish is 1d20+Dex bonus to armor rather then d6
Skills as I have mentioned before
Dodge and Parry equal to Dex bonus and Extra attacks respectively rather then Thaco.

I love it.

---Rusty

 

[DungeonMaester]

Also, I am not finding information on Saving throws in the book. Help Please?


---Rusty

 

[T. Foster]

Also, I am not finding information on Saving throws in the book. Help Please?


---Rusty

The saving throw charts for 1st ed. AD&D are found in the DMG, not the Players Handbook.

P.S. After all the back-and-forth and confusion in this thread, glad to hear you seem to have found a version of the game that works for you

 

[thedungeondelver]

Too late. I have play tested through AD&D 1st. ed. and I loved it. The only house rules I decided to add are rather minor:

Diaglo's Stat chart with my own HR touch.
Bards are fine
Inish is 1d20+Dex bonus to armor rather then d6
Skills as I have mentioned before
Dodge and Parry equal to Dex bonus and Extra attacks respectively rather then Thaco.

I love it.

---Rusty

Um, I was more making fun of your typo, bud.

"box sex".

ANYWAY...

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I have play tested through AD&D 1st. ed. and I loved it.

Excellent -- go with 1E AD&D, then.

Also, I am not finding information on Saving throws in the book. Help Please?

Saving throw information, combat tables, experience point awards, magic items, and a boatload of other useful stuff is in the 1E Dungeon Masters Guide.

You'll find some great free 1E resources (character sheets, adventures, maps, and more) at Dragonsfoot.

 

[pemerton]

If you want to play AD&D 1E, I would recommend the OSRIC pdf as a far cleaner version of the rules. (Though without much of the flavour of the original rules text.)

For example, despite having GMed 1st ed for 5 or more years back in the day, and having read the race and class descriptions countless times, it wasn't until I read OSRIC that I noticed that Gnomish Fighter/Illusionists are restricted to leather armour (unlike their Elven Fighter/Magic-user counterparts).