The glory of OD&D

Depending on which printing of OD&D you are using you may want the errata sheet:

[*]Errata for OD&D 1974 Edition @ http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=133681

And you may also want the FAQ that originally appeared in THE STRATEGIC REVIEW Vol. 1, No. 2 (Summer 1975):

QUESTIONS MOST FREQUENTLY ASKED ABOUT DUNGEONS & DRAGONS RULES

The space limitations of D&D (and it was difficult to get all we managed to in three booklets!) forced us to gloss over certain areas, hoping that this would not cause undue problems for readers. While the number of letters with questions regarding D & D indicates that our assumption was correct, even one or two percent of the readers represents too large a portion of unsatisfied buyers, so we herewith offer a few more details in those areas where questions most frequently occur.

In addition, there are a few errors which have been corrected by means of additional sheet in the latest printing of D & D. Those of you with sets of the rules which do not contain these corrections can acquire one simply by sending a stamped return envelope to TSR requesting “D & D Corrections”.

Combat: CHAINMAIL is primarily a system for 1:20 combat, although it provides a basic understanding for man-to-man fighting also. The “Man-To-Man” and “Fantasy Supplement” sections of Chainmail provide systems for table-top actions of small size. The regular CHAINMAIL system is for larger actions where man-like types are mainly involved, i.e. kobolds, goblins, dwarves, orcs, elves, men, hobgoblins, etc. It is suggested that the alternate system in D & D be used to resolve the important melees where principal figures are concerned, as well as those involving the stronger monsters.

When fantastic combat is taking place there is normally only one exchange of attacks per round, and unless the rules state otherwise, a six-sided die is used to determine how many hit points damage is sustained when an attack succeeds. Weapon type is not considered, save where magical weapons are concerned. A super hero, for example, would attack eight times only if he were fighting normal men (or creatures basically that strength, i.e.,kobolds, goblins, gnomes, dwarves, and so on).

Considerations such as weapon-type, damage by weapon-type, and damage by monster attack tables appear in the first booklet to be added to the D & D series --SUPPLEMENT I, GREYHAWK, which should be available about the time this publication is, or shortly thereafter.

Iniative is always checked. Surprise naturally allows first attack in many cases. Iniative thereafter is simply a matter of rolling two dice (assuming that is the number of combatants) with the higher score gaining first attack that round. Dice scores are adjusted for dexterity and so on.

Combat Example:

10 ORCS surprise a lone Hero wandering lost in the dungeons, but the die check reveals they are 30’ distant at the time of surprise, so they use their iniative to close to melee distance. lnitiative is now checked. The Hero scores a 3, plus 1 for his high dexterity, so it is counted 4. The Orcs score 6, and even a minus 1 for their lack of dexterity (optional) still allows them first attack. As they outnumber their opponent so heavily it is likely that they will try to overpower him rather than kill, so each hit they score will be counted as attempts to grapple the Hero:

- Assumed armor of the Hero: Chainmail & Shield -- AC 4.

- Score required to hit AC 4 -- 15 (by monsters with 1 hit die).

- Only 5 Orcs can attack, as they haven’t had time to surround.

Assume the following dice scores for the Orcs attacks:
Orc #1 - 06; #2 - 10; #3 - 18; #4 - 20; #5 - 03.

Two of the Orcs have grappled the Hero, and if his score with 4 dice is less than their score with 2 dice he has been pinned helplessly. If it is a tie they are struggling, with the Hero still on his feet, but he will be unable to defend himself with his weapon. If the Hero scores higher than the Orcs use the positive difference to throw off his attackers, i.e. the Hero scores 15 and the Orcs scored but 8, so the Hero has tossed both aside, stunning them for 7 turns between them.

- Round 2: lniative goes to the Hero.

- Score required to hit Orcs -- 11 (4th level fighter vs. AC 6).

Assume the following dice score by the Hero. Note that he is allowed one attack for each of his combat levels as the ratio of one Orc vs. the Hero is 1:4, so this is treated as normal (non-fantastic) melee, as is any combat where the score of one side is a base 1 hit die or less.

Hero: 19; 01; 16; 09. Two out of four blows struck. There are 8 orcs which can be possibly hit. An 8-sided die is rolled to determine which have been struck. Assume a 3 and an 8 are rolled. Orcs #3 and #8 are diced for to determine their hit points, and they have 3 and 4 points respectively. Orc #3 takes 6 damage points and is killed. Orc #8 takes 1 damage point and is able to fight.

- All 7 surviving/non-stunned Orcs are now able to attack.

Continued attempts to overpower the Hero are assumed, and no less than 4 Orcs are able to attack the Hero from positions where his shield cannot be brought into play, so his AC is there considered 5, and those Orcs which attack from behind add +2 to their hit dice. In the case it is quite likely that the Orcs will capture the Hero.

Saving throws for monsters are the same as for the appropriate type and level of man, i.e. a balrog would gain the saving throw of either a 10th level fighter or a 12th level magic-user (the latter based upon the balrog’s magic resistance), whichever score is the more favorable for the balrog. A troll would be equal to a 7th level fighter as it has 6 dice +3, virtually seven dice.

Morale: This is a factor which is seldom considered. The players, basically representing only their own character and a few others, have their own personal morale in reality. Unintelligent monsters fight until death. Occassionally, however, it is necessary to check either troops serving with a party (in whatever respect) or the morale of intelligent monsters. This is strictly a decision for the referee. The system used is likewise up to the referee, although there is one in CHAINMAIL which can be employed, or he can simply throw two dice -- a 2 being very bad morale, a 12 being very good morale. With situational adjustments this score will serve as a guideline for what action will be taken by the party checked.

Experience: Low value should be placed upon magical items as far as experience is concerned, as such items will be highly useful in gaining still more treasure. Thus, in the Greyhawk campaign a magic arrow (+1) is worth a maximum of 100 points experience, a +1 magic sword with no special abilities is valued at a maximum of 1,000 points, a scroll of spells at either 500 or at 100 points per level per spell (so a 6th level spell is worth a maximum of 600 experience points), a potion is worth between 250 and 500 points, and even a genie ring is worth no more than about 5,000 points maximum. Valuable metals and stones, however, are awarded experience points on a 1 gold piece to 1 experience point ratio, adjusted for circumstances -- as explained in D & D, a 10th level fighter cannot roust a bunch of kobolds and expect to gain anything but about 1/10th experience unless the number of the kobolds and the circumstances of the combat were such as to seriously challenge the fighter and actually jeopardize his life. For purposes of experience determination the level, of the monster is equivalent to its hit dice, and additional abilities add to the level in this case. A gorgon is certainly worth about 10 level factors, a balrog not less than 12, the largest red dragon not less than 16 or 17, and so on. The referee’s judgement must be used to determine such matters, but with the foregoing examples it should prove to be no difficulty.

Spells: A magic-user can use a given spell but once during any given day, even if he is carrying his books with him. This is not to say that he cannot equip himself with a multiplicity of the same spell so as to have its use more than a single time. Therefore, a magic-user could, for example, equip himself with three sleep spells, each of which would be usable but once. He could also have a scroll of let us say two spells, both of which are also sleep spells. As the spells were read from the scrolls they would disappear, so in total that magic-user would have a maximum of five sleep spells to use that day. If he had no books with him there would be no renewal of spells on the next day, as the game assumes that the magic-use gains spells by preparations such as memorizing incantations, and once the spell is spoken that particular memory pattern is gone completely. ln a similar manner spells are inscribed on a scroll, and as the words are uttered they vanish from the scroll.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Llaurenela said:
It is a mistaken belief that OD&D is a very limited sytem, it is the the least limited system to play there is.
Perhaps "limited" is the wrong term. It is not limited in what you can do, it is limited in what is defined by the rules. Since everything that is not defined by the rules has to be decided on by a referee, then the referee has to spend far too much time for my taste making rule decisions, and not enough time (again, for my taste) working on the actual plot. Of course, OD&D wasn't originally envisioned to be played with a plot: it was (from what I know about it) a slightly expanded dungeon-crawling wargame.

I do not doubt that you can have a rich role-playing experience with OD&D. I do, however, doubt that the vast majority of DMs could pull that off. If Crothian can, hats off to him. Note that you mentioned games that have been running for 30+ years. Undoubtedly, referees of those games have long ago made critical rules decisions and house-ruled most (if not all) rules issues that could pop up in a game. Thus, they are now free to focus on creating interesting stories and making up kick-ass dungeons. A person new to the system has a bumpy road ahead when he has to work out all those issues for himself.

As stated earlier, I have no interest in running or playing in games that rely on ad-hoc decisions. I do not believe in the mythical "trust" between the GM and players, since I am a GM myself and I can be right-down rat-bastardly if I feel like it. Additionally, I spend at least 12 hours prepping for each of my 4-6 hour sessions, and most of that time is spent on the plot and NPCs. Using an ad-hoc system would mean that some of that time would have to be spent on house-ruling, which would detract from the rest of the experience. All this has nothing to do with my experience with role-playing systems (as implied by Ghendar), since I have experience with AD&D 1st and 2nd edition, RIFTS, Warhammer FRP, Vampire, and so on. Codified rules are what works for me. My initial concern was about Crothian's players, but if they're fine with it, more power to him.
 

PapersAndPaychecks said:
As a RPG system, OD&D is only slightly more limited than "let's pretend." ;)

True. Any system can be fun with a competant and enthusiastic DM who takes the time to fill in the various holes in the system, or knows how to work around them; I certainly can't ever recall anyone ever saying Diaglo is anything but a stellar and inventive GM. It simply doesn't surprise me that a game run by him would be fun for everyone concerned, even if it's a version of D&D that only has a bare handful of rules.

It requires a lot of trust on the players part that, when you say something like 'I want to jump off the moving wagon, grab that rope, and swing around to knock the bandit off his horse' or 'Remember the background I gave you? I know how to forge a letter pretty darn well' - things that are not covered specifically in the ODD+supplements rules-as-written, the GM is going to be able to handle that situation not only then but consistantly in the future, and extropolate what he did then to similar areas. If you have that level of trust, then even the most rules-light system on Earth is a joy to participate in.
 

Ghendar said:
I totally agree but for those who have only known 3rd ed, it can be a tough sell to try to convince them to even try an older edition.

I have found that this can be easier then people think. But it requires them to trust the DM and the other people. A gaming group is a very important piece of the gaming puzzle and gaming with friends is the key.
 

Crothian said:
But it requires them to trust the DM and the other people. A gaming group is a very important piece of the gaming puzzle and gaming with friends is the key.
I have some really good friends who are really bad GMs. I would trust them with my life, but I wouldn't trust them to run a good gaming session.
 

WayneLigon said:
True. Any system can be fun with a competant and enthusiastic DM who takes the time to fill in the various holes in the system.

Corollary: Any system is totally not fun if you have an incompetent and unenthusiastic GM who thinks in terms of rules instead of characters - no matter how good the system.

Further corollary: The better the GM, the simpler the ruleset you can get away with.
 

Sammael said:
Perhaps "limited" is the wrong term. It is not limited in what you can do, it is limited in what is defined by the rules. Since everything that is not defined by the rules has to be decided on by a referee, then the referee has to spend far too much time for my taste making rule decisions, and not enough time (again, for my taste) working on the actual plot. Of course, OD&D wasn't originally envisioned to be played with a plot: it was (from what I know about it) a slightly expanded dungeon-crawling wargame.

I do not doubt that you can have a rich role-playing experience with OD&D. I do, however, doubt that the vast majority of DMs could pull that off. If Crothian can, hats off to him. Note that you mentioned games that have been running for 30+ years. Undoubtedly, referees of those games have long ago made critical rules decisions and house-ruled most (if not all) rules issues that could pop up in a game. Thus, they are now free to focus on creating interesting stories and making up kick-ass dungeons. A person new to the system has a bumpy road ahead when he has to work out all those issues for himself.

As stated earlier, I have no interest in running or playing in games that rely on ad-hoc decisions. I do not believe in the mythical "trust" between the GM and players, since I am a GM myself and I can be right-down rat-bastardly if I feel like it. Additionally, I spend at least 12 hours prepping for each of my 4-6 hour sessions, and most of that time is spent on the plot and NPCs. Using an ad-hoc system would mean that some of that time would have to be spent on house-ruling, which would detract from the rest of the experience. All this has nothing to do with my experience with role-playing systems (as implied by Ghendar), since I have experience with AD&D 1st and 2nd edition, RIFTS, Warhammer FRP, Vampire, and so on. Codified rules are what works for me. My initial concern was about Crothian's players, but if they're fine with it, more power to him.

I think this is the main, driving distinction between the older versions and the newer versions; the scope of the rules. Not the detail of the rules, but the kinds of activities they cover. In OD&D and AD&D there is no "skill" system that covers activity beyond a few small areas (combat, unlocking a lock, tracking someone, etc). Most of the activity is just co-operative imagination with a referee. Some people prefer this way of playing, some don't.

It's not a matter of one being better than the other, but I think it's the real distinction in terms of why the older games are truly different from the newer ones. I play AD&D and have never played OD&D (nor would my players allow it - they were rattled enough by shifting from 3e to 1e) but you can see the power of OD&D's system from the vantage point of a Holmes rulebook. It is indeed breathtaking.
 

WayneLigon said:
True. Any system can be fun with a competant and enthusiastic DM who takes the time to fill in the various holes in the system, or knows how to work around them; I certainly can't ever recall anyone ever saying Diaglo is anything but a stellar and inventive GM. It simply doesn't surprise me that a game run by him would be fun for everyone concerned, even if it's a version of D&D that only has a bare handful of rules.

It requires a lot of trust on the players part that, when you say something like 'I want to jump off the moving wagon, grab that rope, and swing around to knock the bandit off his horse' or 'Remember the background I gave you? I know how to forge a letter pretty darn well' - things that are not covered specifically in the ODD+supplements rules-as-written, the GM is going to be able to handle that situation not only then but consistantly in the future, and extropolate what he did then to similar areas. If you have that level of trust, then even the most rules-light system on Earth is a joy to participate in.

See I have seen the opposite in the 2ed and 3rd ed games I have participated in where the players wouldn't even think to attempt anything unless they had a proficiency/skill/feat to cover such activity and even then they were concerned with doing the mundane activities as well thus spent proficiencies/skills/feats on such things. I am however not preaching one system over another but I am saying we have all had different experiences. I personally do not see a need for so many rules but everyone has their own tastes and needs based on life situations and gaming styles. I personally want one set of core rules that I know inside and out and have no want or need for any published adventures or supplements (Plus @ this point in my life I don't have the money to spend on them :\ ). My biggest problem is finding players but that has always been a problem in the small southern town I live in :uhoh: .
 

It's been 12 years since I played OD&D with the Rules Cyclopedia. But it was a blast, that game and the AD&D 2nd Ed game I played in the year before that were some of the best games I played in. 3rd to 3.5 has that same feel, able to run a campaign with three ,or in the case of the rules cyclopedia one, book(s). So switch back and forth between editions, it'll allow you to appreciate the strenghts of both.
 

Sammael said:
As stated earlier, I have no interest in running or playing in games that rely on ad-hoc decisions. I do not believe in the mythical "trust" between the GM and players, since I am a GM myself and I can be right-down rat-bastardly if I feel like it. Additionally, I spend at least 12 hours prepping for each of my 4-6 hour sessions, and most of that time is spent on the plot and NPCs. Using an ad-hoc system would mean that some of that time would have to be spent on house-ruling, which would detract from the rest of the experience. All this has nothing to do with my experience with role-playing systems (as implied by Ghendar), since I have experience with AD&D 1st and 2nd edition, RIFTS, Warhammer FRP, Vampire, and so on. Codified rules are what works for me. My initial concern was about Crothian's players, but if they're fine with it, more power to him.

I wasn't necessarily focussing on you Sammael. My comments were in fact directed at another poster in this thread. That poster may infact (as you do) have experience with previous editions but in my experience those who were not around for 1st ED and have never played 1st ED and really have only played 3rd ED cannot (in a great many cases, but not necessarily including everyone) appreciate 1st ED or OD&D.

Personally, I prefer a more "fly by the seat of your pants" style of DMing rather than the "there's a rule for everything" mentality of 3rd ED.

In any event, it's just a game and frankly anyone who would have a problem with me as a DM, making up ad hoc rules doesn't have a place at my table. I'm always amazed by how many people (I'm generalizing, not targeted at anyone specifically) get upset about these things. It's just a game people. There's no money at stake. Why not just relax and have a good time and not worry about every single last stinking rule. :D
 

Remove ads

Top