The glory of OD&D

[Mallus]

Some counter-observations...

Because DMs can and do play favorites.

Yes, but I don't see that there's not much you do about that through the rules. The rules don't tell a DM what tactics to use, or what foes, or what tone to set, or how to evaluate a PC's plans/strategems, or any one of number of different game elements that can privilage a particular player or playstyle.

Because DMs can and do make inconsistent rules decisions that can greatly affect the party in a negative way. Codified rules help with this.

Yes. But don't "inconsistant rulings" also benefit the party sometimes? Why assume inconsistancy is always bad? Its been my experience that having a less codified (and consistant) resolution system means that, occasionally, PC's will try, and succeed with, the kind of creative/wacky/downright absurd stunts that every person I've ever gamed with loved and remembered. Some people accept the inconsistancy as a trade-off for being allowed to brainstorm, and I use that term loosely, some very creative solutions to problem (as opposed, say, to always using the same set of rules-legal 'canned' ability combos).

Because DMs can and do have mood swings.

True. And no rule system can alleviate this problem, because its not a rules issue, its an interpersonal skills one.

Because DMs can and do forget. And they shouldn't have to be the only ones to know the rules.

Yes. But some gamers like to focus on the situation their characters are in, not the underlying mechanics of the task-resolution system (or systems) in place. Some players can ask the DM "Does it look like I can jump the chasm?" and get a meaningful, honest response.

Because some players playing in a non-codified system expect that their characters can do ANYTHING and EVERYTHING.

These people are silly.

And many DMs don't know how to deal with this without resorting to heavy-handedness and/or arguments.

This, again, is a communication and interpersonal-skills issue. Are you suggesting the a rules-heavier system like 3.5 doesn't produce player/DM arguments?

 

[Henry]

Growing up, my brother, who is significantly older than I and the source of my involvement in gaming, always used to explain it like this: He'd hold up a rule book and say: "See this? What is it?" and then follow it with "Its a big book of suggestions."

OD&D no more facilitates this any other system, as has been said.

Having had many discussions on the site, it keeps coming down to the GM trust issue that Crothian alluded to. If it's ever an issue, an ad hoc rules system just isn't a good fit. If it isn't an issue, it works darned well.

 

[Ghendar]

Diaglo has converted another...who will be next?

I never stopped liking OD&D, although my OD&D started with the "red box" in 1983, I believe. It's basically how I got involved in D&D. And it's more than just nostalgia, it's a fine system.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

See? Then people counter with their own brand of snobbery. He, and I, said if you have fun playing it then play it! We are such horribly snobbish Grognards!

Pretty much Treebore. Your attitutde, and that of many others is very off putting, with the constant harping on how d20 "detracts from role playing" and other nonsensical claims on how much things were better in the old days, complaints on coddling new DM's etc, whining new players, etc. I'm sick of it. I've roleplayed for 20 years now, using a variety of systems, and I can safely say that using 3.5 rules, I'm running the best games I've ever run.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Pretty much Treebore. Your attitutde, and that of many others is very off putting, with the constant harping on how d20 "detracts from role playing" and other nonsensical claims on how much things were better in the old days, complaints on coddling new DM's etc, whining new players, etc. I'm sick of it. I've roleplayed for 20 years now, using a variety of systems, and I can safely say that using 3.5 rules, I'm running the best games I've ever run.

Excellent. But not everyone has the same experience, or wants from a game system as you.

 

[Crothian]

Remember, this is about the glory of oD&D and not an edition war. 3e is great, I still love and play it. In fact many people I know who've been gaming for twenty plus years feel the same way. It is not for everyone, but no game is for everyone.

 

[Voadam]

Is OD&D available as a pdf? I know Chainmail, Greyhawk,Blackmoor, Eldritch Wizardry and the gods one are, but I'm not sure I've seen OD&D offered.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Is OD&D available as a pdf? I know Chainmail, Greyhawk,Blackmoor, Eldritch Wizardry and the gods one are, but I'm not sure I've seen OD&D offered.

This was discussed above in the thread, but no, it isn't. Many of the supplements are available, but the original boxed set isn't.

 

[MeepoDM]

This was discussed above in the thread, but no, it isn't. Many of the supplements are available, but the original boxed set isn't.

yeah, that stinks - how can we as mere mortals know the glory of OD&D if there is no readily available source to get it from? I'd love to learn more about it, as this thread has certainly peaked my interests, but if the only way to get it is by paying a ransom on eBay or seeking out dozens of supplements and piecing it together, well, I guess it just ain't gonna happen

 

[T. Foster]

This was discussed above in the thread, but no, it isn't. Many of the supplements are available, but the original boxed set isn't.

What I've heard (and this may be an urban legend) is that when whoever was licensed by WotC was first making the scans, they were depending on people to send in books to be scanned -- you sent in your book, they scanned it, and you got back a free copy of the pdf, but not your book. If this is true, it's no wonder no one was willing to send in a copy of the original rules