OD&D(1974) vs. The Red Book - Differences?

[Gentlegamer]

I would say the truly fundamental difference between the original D&D game and any of its later incarnations is that the original game was actually incomplete and required rules knowledge from the Chainmail game to play.

 

[T. Foster]

Ruleswise OD&D and the Red Book(s) are pretty close, and all of the really significant differences have already been listed by Philotomy Jurament. There's also a fairly significant difference in tone, though, which is the real reason I prefer the earlier version to the later ones. The original D&D rules are explicitly a toolbox, a mere starting point, and it's absolutely assumed that every campaign will alter and expand upon the material in the books to create something individual and unique. The later versions of Classic D&D, OTOH, present more of a "closed system" where, while the individual DM is still free to change and customize the game if he wants to, he isn't particularly encouraged to, and certainly isn't assumed/expected to. The Mentzer Basic Set goes so far as to specifically discourage beginning DMs from adding to or changing anything in the rules until they've got more experience with the game, so as to avoid throwing off the careful balance of the rules.

Also tied into this is the fact that OD&D is written for an assumed audience of adults who are experienced wargamers, whereas the later Basic Sets are geared towards a novice audience (specifically an audience of children) with absolutely no prior wargame experience. Therefore, things tend to be spelled out in a much more detailed "handholding" manner in the later sets (Mentzer, for instance, devotes an entire page to how to read the dice whereas OD&D just throwa the reader in at the deep end -- polyhedral dice are mentioned once, in the Recommended Equipment list, right next to Outdoor Survival and drafting equipment, and past that it's up to the reader to determine which dice are rolled when (or even how to get a spread of 1-20 when your die is numbered 0-9 twice...)).

So each set is best for different purposes. If you're an experienced gamer who wants a foundation and framework upon which to build your own rpg as you go that's just a couple steps removed from pure freeform play, then OD&D is the best. If you're in the mood for some casual play and want something simple yet complete that you can sit down and start playing right away, then the 1981 (Moldvay/Cook/Marsh) Basic/Expert set combo is hard to beat. And if you're introducing the game to a kid or other absolute novice and want something that takes them through step by step, the 1983 (Mentzer) Basic Set is pretty much ideal.

 

[howandwhy99]

OD&D had no player rulebooks. The rules were for the referee to run the game.

 

[Delta]

OD&D had no player rulebooks. The rules were for the referee to run the game.

You know, 5 minutes before I came here I was going to write a blog on exactly that topic. However, I find that OD&D Vol. 1 does recommend players getting the set (p. 4, below). Clearly, the Vol. 1 "Men and Magic" contains all the elements we usually connote with a Player's Handbook:

If you are a player purchasing the DUNGEONS and DRAGONS rules in order to improve your situation in an existing campaign, you will find that there is a great advantage in knowing what is herein. If your referee has made changes in the rules and/or tables, simply note them in pencil (for who knows when some flux of the cosmos will make things shift once again!), and keep the rules nearby as you play. A quick check of some rule or table may bring hidden treasure or save your game "life".

That having been said, it's interesting to see the evolution of D&D's evolution from assuming you were selling adventure materials almost exclusively to DMs (at a presumed 1:20 player ratio! p. 5), to selling lots of player-boost aids (2E and 3E), to recommending that DM's be removed from the game entirely (Ryan Dancey in August '07). It's like the business case for finding some way to sell stuff to the big end of the 1:20 player ratio being a superpredator that consumed the whole idea of the original game.

 

[howandwhy99]

If I were running a business, I'd recommend everyone to buy my product too. If every player bought D&D in '74, the game could have grown by a factor of 20 per group.

My thinking is, a player who owns the rules doesn't presume to know the Rules In Play (RIP) versus the Rules As Written (RAW). He or she is not in charge of the rules, the Ref is.


===
Also, I wanted to compliment you on your OD&D blog. I'm glad you're up and posting again (it felt embarrassing to link to that helmet rule every so often).

2xAlso, I've had an idea rolling around my head for the last few months now. Well, okay, one of many, but this one has to do with D&D and dice.

Rolling the dice well is not a tactic. Dice rolls are rules in action, and as such they come under the purview of the referee. The player has no ability to change the result of the dice except through interacting in the play world before the roll is made. In fact, he has absolutely no need to roll the dice at all. The referee could roll every die behind the screen every time. The drawback to this method, however, is the players are not able to learn the difficulty of their attempted actions from the roll results as well as from the descriptive results. The players' true skill comes not from lucky dice rolls, but from choosing when and when not to roll them. These decisions are best made by thinking in character.

Keeping rules behind the curtain/shield is necessary to stop the game from becoming a matter of number crunching for the players as the numbers are the odds for their attempted actions. Learning the degree of difficulty comes through role-play with each particular referee. If the players are in charge of the rules, it removes the necessity of role-play and instead promotes rule referencing, rule-speak, and rule-think.

 

[Delta]

Hey, thanks for the compliment!