The glory of OD&D

[ColonelHardisson]

Well, I'm familiar with the game from way back - I knew people who had copies - and while I don't see what the big deal is about it, it would be nice for it to be available for something less than highway robbery prices. I prefer more complexity (as I said elsewhere) but I can see that many others would be drawn to the lightness of the rules in OD&D.

 

[Stonegiant]

If it's the one true game why is GAry playing LA then .

Hey just a bit of trivia Gary is still playing with the three brown OD&D books on his game that he runs on his front porch

 

[Ghendar]

Okay I'm curious. I started "OD&D" with the Red Box set in the 80's. Anyone know how that set differs significantly from the old white and/or brown box sets?

Is there a huge difference?

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Okay I'm curious. I started "OD&D" with the Red Box set in the 80's. Anyone know how that set differs significantly from the old white and/or brown box sets?

Is there a huge difference?

They're both recognizably D&D, but the original D&D was more rules-light. As I recall, it only had 3 classes. But I'll let someone with more recent memories detail the differences.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

There's a fair bit of difference, yes. That 1980's set (which I think is probably Moldvay/Cook) was based on an expanded version of the original rules. OD&D is considerably simpler.

For example, in OD&D as originally stated, everyone has 1d6 hit points and every weapon does 1d6 damage.

 

[Blustar]

Hey just a bit of trivia Gary is still playing with the three brown OD&D books on his game that he runs on his front porch

but he's still DM'ing LA right?(and C&C's too) I thought OD&D was the one true system? With one true system you don't need any others right?

I would love to play in Gary's OD&D games no doubt but can we stop with the one true system?


Blue

 

[Kormydigar]

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.

First of all. No game system that I can think of actively "detracts" from roleplaying. Some systems support it mechanically better than others but thats another issue. The fact that you have had 20 years of roleplaying experience means that you have no idea what it would be like to run 3.X D&D as your very first roleplaying experience. I am right there with you, having 26 years of experience, it would be hard to imagine what playing 3.X as a first game would be like. The point is that people like you and me can play 3.X without problems because of the vast PRE 3.X experiences. Brand new DM's and players might have no idea how much improv, ad-hoc calls, and "out of the box" thinking took place in older editions of the game. With a rules set so comprehensive like 3rd Ed. the noob DM may feel that everything is covered and a game could come to a screeching halt the first time something really wacky pops up. Not getting to mess around with a rules lite system (at least for a while) kind of puts a damper on DM development as I see it. I don't really see things as being "better in the old days" (beyond nostalgic wishes for free time again) but the experiences those old days gave us should be remembered.

 

[Treebore]

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.

I don't see how I am "off putting". Other than I dare say that 3E isn't for me.
As long as you don't try and trash C&C as being a bad set fo rules I don't have a problem with what your opinion is. I DMed 3E for almost 5 years, now C&C is my rules system of choice. Plus I have been playing since May of 1985. I've played a LOT of rules systems.

Just now my best games are with C&C instead of 3E. Plus a handful of house rules, which are fewer in number than what I have for 3E.

I guess that is why I went with C&C instead of just going back to OD&D or 1E/2E. It has a lot of house rules I would use as its core actual rules. Plus the SIEGE engine is just so awesome. So I have about a half dozen house rules. So for me it just made sense to go with C&C and go from there.

I would have considered OD&D if Diaglo had noticed my posts of dissatisfaction with 3E and sent me a pdf of his house rules and OD&D. But he didn't and I came across C&C at the right time.

Plus I am not in an edition war. I'll play any edition. I'll only DM C&C. All I am saying is for those who are frustrated/dissatisfied with their 3E game check out C&C, FUDGE, and any other game system. Don't just up and quit RPG's.

 

[diaglo]

There's a fair bit of difference, yes. That 1980's set (which I think is probably Moldvay/Cook) was based on an expanded version of the original rules. OD&D is considerably simpler.

For example, in OD&D as originally stated, everyone has 1d6 hit points and every weapon does 1d6 damage.

yup. moldvay stops at level 3 and cook picks up but only to level 14.

OD&D goes to lvl infinity

3 classes. cleric, fighting man, magic user

3d6 in order.

and the true order is Str, Int, Wis, Con, Dex, Cha.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

yeah, that stinks - how can we as mere mortals know the glory of OD&D

Out of the legally available PDFs, the best bet would be to use Holmes basic as a basis, and add in stuff from the OD&D supplements. IMO, the Holmes basic rules have more in common with OD&D than with the later Moldvay/Cook/Marsh edition (B/X) or with the Mentzer edition (BECMI).

For those confused by the terms:

OD&D = the original 3 books and supplements
Holmes = the "basic set" with the "blue book"
B/X = basic & expert sets with Erol Otus covers (Moldvay/Cook/Marsh)
BECMI = basic through immortals sets with Elmore covers (Mentzer)
RC = Rules Cyclopedia (BECM compiled into one book)