Why OD&D Is Still Relevant

Since it was probably all over your feeds already (and has been mentioned on the front page here), I won’t go into a great deal of detail except to say that the first edition of Dungeons & Dragons is out in PDF on all of the OneBookshelf related-sites. A big part of the problem with having role-playing gaming conversation online (and in person as well) is that a lot of the viewpoints are based off of what people have read or heard other people say about games, rather than experience them first hand. Many times this is because the material in question is long out of print, and the people wanting to talk about couldn’t experience them first hand. As more older material comes back into print (or made available in PDF form) I would like to think that it will make having honest conversations easier. I know that is likely a naïve idea.


Since it was probably all over your feeds already (and has been mentioned on the front page here), I won’t go into a great deal of detail except to say that the first edition of Dungeons & Dragons is out in PDF on all of the OneBookshelf related-sites. A big part of the problem with having role-playing gaming conversation online (and in person as well) is that a lot of the viewpoints are based off of what people have read or heard other people say about games, rather than experience them first hand. Many times this is because the material in question is long out of print, and the people wanting to talk about couldn’t experience them first hand. As more older material comes back into print (or made available in PDF form) I would like to think that it will make having honest conversations easier. I know that is likely a naïve idea.

Original
(or Old, depending on how you like to fill in the “O”) Dungeons & Dragons is the transition from earlier wargames to what would eventually become role-playing games. I like to think of this incarnation as being more like “proto” D&D, mostly because while there are a lot of the elements that gamers without familiarity with the older D&D experience would recognize as being D&D, still not all of the pieces are in place. I think the things that aren’t there will be more likely to trip people up.

Let’s talk a little about what the proto D&D isn’t, or doesn’t have, for those who haven’t experienced it. First off, everything from weapons to hit dice are on a d6 “scale.” That means that weapons tend to look pretty much alike, as do the hit points of characters. Fighters (called “Fighting-Men” at this point after Edgar Rice Burroughs references) get slightly more hit dice than Magic-Users, but Clerics are close behind. A party without a Fighter can hang on with a Cleric or two (which is how games I’ve played have worked out).

The other “missing” component is the Thief class. No Thieves ‘til Greyhawk.

Most of the other elements are in place, and “race as class” isn’t yet on the table. There is a flaw, though, in that a couple of special abilities for elves and dwarves refer to the Chainmail rules.

The issues of hit dice and a lack of Thieves are my biggest issue with the proto D&D. The Thieves are a big deal, because between Leiber and Howard, it doesn’t feel like fantasy to me without a Thief. It also seems a weird omission for dungeon-based adventuring.

In play, the sameness of hit dice and weapons damage can lead to a generic quality for things, particularly weapons. It can also create a weird quality of the characters all having roughly the same “toughness” to them, regardless of class. Randomness is a great equalizer in the proto D&D, and your first level Fighter can have fewer hit points than the Magic-User. While it might just appear happenchance on the surface, I think that the random quality is what passed for “game balance” in these earliest versions of the game.

Screen Shot 2016-01-27.png


Now, I haven’t played proto D&D directly in a couple of decades, but over the last few years our group has played a lot of Swords & Wizardry, starting out using the Whitebox rules, and then eventually adding more detail from Core and Complete as we went along in our games. Whitebox certainly was more Magic-User user friendly.

Now, Greyhawk, the first supplement to OD&D, “fixed” these “problems.” This was also the point at which Magic-Users were forever consigned to having d4 hit dice (I personally use a d6 for them in my “old school” games), which can be good or bad depending on your view of things. I get that the reasoning was probably “Hey, they get spells…let’s not go crazy with the Magic-User” but it isn’t a line of reasoning that I agree with. But the nice thing about the game is that it is flexible enough to take a few smacks from house rules, with only minimal wobbling on the part of the system.

And this boils things down as to why I like playing these older editions of the game. For some, playing OD&D or “old school” games like Swords & Wizardry get written off as being nostalgia-driven. Despite having gamed since 1979, I am one of the least nostalgic gamers that you are probably ever going to encounter. Honestly, I killed off enough brain cells in college that I couldn’t remember how I gamed as a kid if I even wanted to do so. But, and this is probably evident in my writing about games, I have reached a point in my life, and my gaming, where I want simpler approaches to things in my gaming. That’s where “old school” games come into play for me.

A couple of years ago, when a long-time friend of mine asked me to introduce her to tabletop RPGs (after years of playing WoW) via Google Hangouts, I started a search for fantasy games that would have a similar enough of an experience that she would be able to recognize it from her experience, while being a simpler experience and getting away from the grid and miniatures approach (that I am not a fan of anyway). I scoured the internet, looking for things that were free downloads (didn’t want her to buy a bunch of stuff and turn out to hate tabletop) and looked over games like Basic Fantasy and Swords & Wizardry. I don’t remember the exact reasoning, maybe because the Whitebox rules were so simple, but that was what we went with. We used a variant Thief class to round out our game.

Anyway, this is a digression but I wanted to dig in a little and show that what I am talking about is play-based. Plus, the flexibility of the game is a huge consideration. Making up new classes is pretty easy, mostly because there aren’t as many mechanics to complicate matters. Expansion for an OD&D game (without Greyhawk being out in PDF at the time of publication) is really easy with all of the resources that exist for games like Swords & Wizardry Whitebox (which, if I haven’t explained well enough is based off of just the rules from the initial OD&D three booklets) to take your OD&D games in all sorts of directions. Barrel Rider Games does a lot of material for Whitebox that can easily be slotted into OD&D as well.

Even if your plan isn’t to play OD&D as-is, there is still a great foundation onto which you can build a fun class and level based fantasy game that does better suit the needs that you might have in a game. Crafting new spells and new monsters is pretty easy. I made about five new monsters before our Tuesday game in just a couple of hours. That time was going from “I have a cool name” to “I have a fully statted out creature.” If you want to check out something that is fairly close to OD&D (but is free), there is Matt Finch’s Swords & Wizardry. It is a pretty great game in its own rights, and our group has gotten years of enjoyment out of playing the game. I really hope that new edition Swords & Wizardry Kickstarter happens.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Yes. And while options don't care if they are useful, players certainly do care. It's so frustrating to be a player that feels that you are not a meaningful contributor to a party.
Now here's a conceit that's really starting to rub me the wrong way the more I see of it.

Any character (and thus player) can at any time ALWAYS be a meaningful contributor to the party, and thus the game. It just depends on how you define "contributing". Let's take a combat situation where you're out of spells and have no useful way of directly hurting the opponent. Are you keeping a lookout? Are you directing traffic? Are you being a distraction so the opponent(s) don't notice what your friends are doing? Are you looting the room? Are you jamming the door open so you all have a sure means of escape if needed? Are you doing any of a hundred other useful things? Or are you just moaning that you can't do anything to help?

Balance here might mean that the non-combative character is the key element in the party in other situations e.g. diplomacy or stealth or whatever, at which times others might have to take a back seat for a while; and this is just fine.

The sort of balance where everyone can do an equal amount of stuff at every moment is not a goal worth striving for, because if achieved an obvious side effect will be that all characters are roughly the same...and what's the point of that?

Lan-"unbalanced at the best of times"-efan
 

log in or register to remove this ad

E

ExTSR

Guest
If you're honest, you have to admit that Combat might occupy as much as 1% of a Fighter's life. But then, we don't play out the boring stuff at the table. ;> So what's the net percentage in play? Is your game 10% combat, 50%, 95%...? And as a direct corollary, does that combat take forever to enact? Does this become dissatisfying over time, over many repetitions?

My own games tell the character's stories, and I leave that choice to the players. (I don't hand them a story, I give them the tools to make their own. I primarily offer the World, the scenery behind their drama.) But I don't stack the deck. If your fate is Death in the first encounter because you were stupid and arrogant and slept through Tactics 101 class, oh well; that's the way the dice roll.

The amount of YOUR game that you devote to Combat should be a choice made by the entire group, imo. But when you offer them a buffet of carnage, be sure to include dessert (roleplaying, plot development, et al.). Somebody will try it, and delight in the discovery of the benefits thereof. Your group's balance may shift of its own accord. Watch for that, and don't force them to eat only raw meat.

F
 

Big J Money

Adventurer
Now here's a conceit that's really starting to rub me the wrong way the more I see of it.

Any character (and thus player) can at any time ALWAYS be a meaningful contributor to the party, and thus the game.

I can think of at least 3 sources that I believe this kind of doubt in playing ability stems from

1) New players who haven't "gotten it" yet
2) Underdeveloped imagination
3) That popular style of D&D that emerged at some point (and has been actively promoted by WotC's D&D design) whereby combat A) takes up a large portion of play and B) encourages no imagination, but rather analytical thinking about how to apply the mechanics to win a combat scenario (i.e. the player thinks in terms of "mechanics" instead of "anything is possible if I use my imagination")

1 and 2 can fade over time when a player is immersed in a gaming group that knows how to imaginatively make use of their characters in all kinds of situations.

3 is a culture thing. I just stay away from these play groups since I realize they want something different out of their role-playing than I do. That's why I'm thankful for the OSR and for people who have never played D&D or an RPG before. I'm sure these players can be "converted" by a DM that runs the game in the open creative style versus "by the book". But it's not really a goal of mine and seems like more trouble than it's worth.

Edit: Thinking more about Wizards' personal take on D&D being so culturally unique from the original game, I'm reminded of their promise when they shipped 4E. They made claims about how the game was "a return to its roots" by being more influenced by wargaming. And they couldn't have been more wrong. Their game designs are too balanced and thorough, and encourage a rules mindset in play. Although D&D did draw heavy inspiration from the rules of miniatures wargaming, if you look at the old rules, you see how loose and free they are. And when you read stories of the games the original creators played you can see that they had active imaginations and were primarily focused on seeing their imaginative ideas come to life in how they played the roles they took on. Rules were made on the fly sometimes to facilitate that. This is OD&D and the mode of play that I prefer, personally. The funny thing is that it doesn't really even really on D20, or the sacred 6-stats or saving throws. I could probably use another game system and as long as me and my players played in the 'old style', we'd have a game more like OD&D than the current incarnations of D&D.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

E

ExTSR

Guest
It's so frustrating to be a player that feels that you are not a meaningful contributor to a party. Balance doesn't have to be perfect, but it does matter.
I suggest that instead of obsessing over your friend's toolbox you focus on your own. :/

F
 

mhensley

First Post
If however, you want a glimpse of OD&D + Greyhawk, there is no current better presentation for OD&D neophyte than that given by Chris Gonnerman of Basic Fantasy RPG with his retroclone Iron Falcon. It is well-written and concise explanation of '74-75 OD&D minus all of the Chainmail minutia.

http://ironfalcon.basicfantasy.org

Yeah, I just ordered the print version. The rules looks really good. OD&D is cool but the rulebook is a mess. I appreciate having the clones to clean it up for me.
 

JohnnyZemo

Explorer
Yeah, I just ordered the print version. The rules looks really good. OD&D is cool but the rulebook is a mess. I appreciate having the clones to clean it up for me.

I bought the reprinted OD&D books a couple of years ago, and they are indeed a mess. As someone who doesn't own the Chainmail rules, I don't think I would even be able to run OD&D just from what is in those three booklets. It's not a complete game.
 


Psikerlord#

Explorer
I think OSR style gaming and OD&D is important in 2016 because:

(1) Reminds us of the importance of improvised play from both Players and the GM (more sandbox style)
(2) Demonstrates the benefits of DM rulings over rules
(3) Encourages house rules and customizing your game (whatever system it might be) to best fit your table

I started with 2e and never read anything OSR related until late last year. There's a lot to like, and I think 3e and 4e ultimately took the game in a less desirable direction (in hindsight - I played 3e and 4e for years and had fun doing so). 5e is coming back around and making improvisation easier, but it could still bend quite a bit more imo.
 

A

amerigoV

Guest
I downloaded this little gem and just devoured it. That is a wonderful little system.

To give you my perspective, I started with AD&D, ditched at 2e, came roaring back for 3.x but got exhausted with it. 4e was not for my group but I appreciated what it tried to do. I am now a Savage Worlds fanboy. 5e is interesting, but an edition too late if you will. So I am not looking at this ruleset through the lens of Nostalgia (1e I do, but I know I would only enjoy about 2 sessions of it before I dropped it again)

Some people in the thread have poo-poo'd OD&D, called it primitive, etc. But I can easily see how a good DM would rock with this system and not need all the dead weight that has dogged D&D for decades. Now, I grant that a newer DM might struggle with it - no question. They would either run it "too simple" or start breaking the system with poor adjudications. Also, I can see a veteran D&Der not like it - they have to unlearn too much to appreciate it (I think me stepping away to play other systems helps me appreciate what is there). So I really could see a veteran D&D DM and a bunch of new players just rocking with this game.

I see two very advance concepts in this game that D&D quickly lost and has tried to recover for 40 years. Sadly, it looks like it broke with the Greyhawk supplement.

First Concept - the core non-magic combat system is an Outcome based system, not an Incremental system.

What I mean by Incremental (maybe someone has an official term) is that in isolation combat is resolved by the sum of incremental outcomes that may not all be "equal". A dagger does d4, a longsword does d8, a bow does d6. It does not matter what you are fighting, that is the damage. Your odds of inflicting this damage tends to increase over time, but the impact does not. My understanding this came into being via the Greyhawk supplement when it made explicit strength modifiers for damage and weapons did variable damage.

What I mean by Outcome based that your chance to hit in OD&D represents the odds of you doing "meaningful damage" against a creature. By having the HD be d6s and the damage be d6, you immediately know about how many hits a monster can take before it goes down (a 6 HD monster can take about 6 hits). One can think of combat in terms of a 4e skill challenge. If 4 L3 warriors are fighting a Troll (6HD), then the 4 warriors will need to get 6 successes (hits) before the Troll gets up to 12 success (hits against the PCs). It does not matter if the character is modeled after Conan/Fafrd, Grey Mouser, Robin Hood, a knife fighter, someone with a guisarme, or a baseball bat. The "hit" represents that you got the best placement for your weapon to do a HD of damage.

So why do I think that is advanced? Well, the moment D&D disconnected the damage and the HD it's various designers have spend 40 years trying to create a "balanced" system. There have been endless classes, feats, skills, PrCs, kits, and special rules to try to just make all these weapon work "equally". They had it on the first try and lost it. The Outcome approach is what some newer games try to do - FFG Star Wars comes to mind (roll all them funny dice and they give you an an relative outcome) - perhaps Fate and Dungeon World might be like this as well from my reading but I do not have those systems. An Outcome based approach allows all sorts of character concepts to work well together without having to make a dense system to explicitly make every combination work.

The key to enjoying this would be (to steal a term from Savage Worlds) Trappings. Its all in the description - the DM and Player need to describe the action reflecting the character concept and not just "hit, miss, hit, miss" - which is trap we all fall into.

Since going Savage I really do not like HPs. If I ran it, I would not use HPs for the "run of the mill monsters". I would just track the aforementioned hits. I would still roll for PC damage (hey, that is truly D&D) and let the players roll for the BBEG/Dragons/Giants/etc. To me, that is a natural extension of the HD/Damage system.



Flexible Character Framework
These days you cannot sling a dead cat without hitting myriad of D&D books that have been made to "give players options/choices". Classes, feats, kits, PrCs, etc. But OD&D gives a wonderful framework with the three class:

Non-Magic Combatant: Fighting Man
Pure power Caster: Magic User
Hybrid: Cleric.

Again, this would need a DM that is good at adjudication and experience with other editions of D&D would be helpful, but you really can make any concept with minor tweaks to these three classes:

Robin Hood Archer - Fighting Man, Dex is Prime Requisite
Monk - Cleric with specific spell list
Ranger - Spell caster - Cleric with specific spell list
Druid - MU (depending on how offense base the spells are)

Also, its a great framework for skills. If PCs want to do stuff, it should be easy yes (clearly in your character's wheelhouse), no, or roll. If its a stressful situation you can just use the attack matrix like a skill challenge.


  • Roll the d20, use the PC level (based on their “Proficiency”), assign how hard it is (AC), and how extensive it is (“HD”).
  • Proficiency is the attack table – Fighting Man (best), Cleric (medium), Wizard (poor).
  • If the skill is very adventure useful (sneaking around) then it should be balanced vs. the To Hit. So a “good thief” might be Cleric To Hit and used medium proficiency for thief skills. While a Blacksmith Fighter or a Wizard trying to do Enchantments is right in their wheelhouse.
  • Basically, they have to get HD number of successes (To Hits) before suffering the Character’s level of misses.

Example – Rob the 5th L thief is trying to sneak around and scout a compound. It was already agreed upon that his skills for thieving would be at Medium. The Gm decides the difficulty is middle of the road (AC 5) and there are 4 major areas to scout, so HD=4. Rob has to roll 4 12+’s on a d20 before suffering 5 rolls below a d20. The GM made decide to count a Nat 1 as 2 failures and a Nat 20 as 2 successes.

So to me, this system is very relevant and has some design concepts that still are not part of D&D in an elegant manner. I thought I was just going to get a nice historical oddity for the $10. Instead, I see a very fast and fun system that would scratch the D&D itch I get from time to time.
 
Last edited:

mrm1138

Explorer
[MENTION=26651]amerigoV[/MENTION], you make some excellent points here, especially the relationship between HP and how many hits a character can take.

If you haven't already, I recommend you check out Swords & Wizardry White Box which cleans up these rules a tad (e.g., it offers both ascending and descending armor class systems for grodnards and newbies alike, and each class has a single saving throw with conditional modifiers instead of multiple saving throws). There are also a ton of great supplements, my favorite of which are made by Barrel Rider Games. They are also known for the fantastic space opera game White Star, which is built upon the White Box rules. (In fact, there's a growing community of White Box-based games that have come to represent such genres as espionage, superheroes, westerns, and WWII.)

Speaking of the single saving throw, OSR blogger Akrasia came up with a great skill check mechanic that works very similar to the saving throw. Each class has a skill check value that decreases as they gain levels, making it easier for them to roll equal to or greater than. Depending on that class's strengths, they have bonuses toward certain skill checks. This mechanic was adopted by D101 Games for their Swords & Wizardry variant Crypts & Things. (It's built to emulate the sword & sorcery genre.)

So yeah, I think OD&D (and S&WWB) makes for an excellent pick-up game while also being deep enough for long-term campaigns. I kind of wish I could convince my group to drop 5e for it.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top