Poll: Would you play Original D&D(1974)?(OD&D fanatics only)

[Wombat]

While I voted for Option 3, I actually would edit that a bit

Swords & Spells -- RIGHT OUT! Hobbit slingers are worth negative points! The Good Guys always win!

Outdoor Survival -- so-so on this one. Entirely optional

Strategic Review -- heck YES! Gotta have my Denebian Slime Devil!

 

[JoeBlank]

There is no option applicable to me. The best way to play OD&D is to find a true fanatic and play with the options he suggests.

That is what I am doing, in diaglo's group. Veritas, don't lament that you can't find anyone to go back to the origins of the game, diaglo has seven players.

I started with 1e, so I had never played OD&D before, and figured it would be a great way to celebrate the 30th anniversary of the game. Having a great time in the campaign too, but I think that is more attributable to the enthusiasm of the DM and group than the rules set.

 

[MonsterMash]

I went for option 4, but I'd probably drop Swords and Spells and use the Judges Guild Ready Ref Sheets and Wilderlands setting.

Optimal party to me is 4-7 players though.

 

[Angel Tarragon]

Though I was introduced to DnD through ADnD First Edition, I have played Basic, I would love to play it again. I would not mind playing it as a campaign or a one shot, it is good either way.

 

[Tarrasque Wrangler]

That's really sad, isn't it? That d20 has become so prolific that you can't interest anyone in going back to the origins.

Hey, I find Model T Fords to be kinda neat. Doesn't mean I want to rely on one to get to work every morning.

 

[Orius]

so you OD&D fanatics out there. Would you play in an OD&D(1974) campaign if you could find enough players. (20 being optimal of course).

I would, just for the hell of it, but only a few games here or there. A few one-shot, or maybe a short old-school campaign that lasts maybe a month or two tops, but not a long-term campaign, like the type of game groups play for years.

As a player, there's plenty of computer games out there that do the old fashioned dungeon crawl thing just as effectively. As a DM, I wouldn't want to run because of the sheer difficulty of gaining and retaining players, and because the system from what I know about it isn't all that flexible which isn't good for long-term campaign design (I'm a homebrewer), and because there's a lot that isn't entrely clear or is left completely to DM discretion.

 

[howandwhy99]

so you OD&D fanatics out there. Would you play in an OD&D(1974) campaign if you could find enough players. (20 being optimal of course).

If you are willing to keep running it, I will keep playing it. Don't ask me what rule mods you have going, I can barely follow the books.


Edit: 300th post!!

 

[Plane Sailing]

I voted 4 but I wouldn't ever use Swords and Spells; I just wanted to include Ranger and Illusionist from Strategic Review (I've still got my character sheet from my strategic review ranger. He was 17th level. Don't let anyone who has only ever played 3e and who is over concerned about party balance look at the specs for that class - they would explode!)

The minimum I'd go for is OD&D plus Greyhawk. Blackmoor was mostly a miss as far as I was concerned, Eldritch Wizardry was cool (the druids got call lightning at 3rd level and it would do (8+level) d6!) and I never saw a use for GDG&H.

Cheers

 

[Biohazard]

so you OD&D fanatics out there. Would you play in an OD&D(1974) campaign if you could find enough players. (20 being optimal of course).

Not to be nitpicky, but it doesn't make a lot of sense to ask OD&D fanatics if they would want to play in an OD&D campaign. I mean, the answer would obviously be 'yes', wouldn't it?

 

[MrFilthyIke]

so you OD&D fanatics out there. Would you play in an OD&D(1974) campaign if you could find enough players. (20 being optimal of course).

If I knew anyone who had the boxes, I would.