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

Xavian Starsider

First Post
I was interested in getting the PDF but was curious to see what the poster thought were its selling points. But after reading this article, I still have no idea why OD&D is still relevant. This read like an ad for Sworrds & Wizardry which felt like it was referenced more than OD&D.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Shadow Demon

Explorer
@Xavian
Unless you are interested in it for historical significance or just like to read and collect older systems; I wouldn't bother. Once all the supplements have been added in, there is little point to not go with AD&D (or S&W Complete for a pre-filter of some of AD&D's complexity) as your minimum system. Of course, I bought it because I am such a person.

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
 

OD&D is king. It's still more relevant to the design of almost every computer game today, and in the last 30 years, than to any present day tabletop RPG. New RPGs aren't about beating a game system anymore. OD&D and most every 80s and 90s tabletop RPG were about mastering the system - like any chess player, sports athlete, or all around gamer. That's what's forgotten. OD&D was the first game players had to beat. The killer core design found in millions of variations from Super Mario Bros. to Zelda to most everything after.

It's solve the game. Solve the game. Solve the game.

Those ideas used to exist in the old wargaming days. Mountains of lost cultural material shoveled over and given rewritten histories.

It's inconceivable how many self-avowed "gamers" think that games should exclusively be conceived of as so-called "group story making" and shame other ideas out of conversations. How much self-righteous absolutism does it take to claim "in the many centuries of humanity no culture of ideas ever formed about games or game design until 10 years ago". This is the wholesale purposed eradication of gaming as a free culture and supplanted by narrative culture.

Even though I only occasionally play a "beat the game/challenge" style game, I love it when I get the chance. Surviving a death trap dungeon through player skill its extraordinarily fun for me, even though I'm normally more of a method actor player.

I agree with your frustration over the modern gaming orthodoxy that it's all about story-telling. First of all, you can't tell a story within the framework of a role-playing game. You can only explore a world and see what history gets created, or you can assent to a story told by someone else, or you can cobble together a shared narration and hope it turns into something resembling a story. I think there is a fundamental error in the modern assumption that RPGs are story-telling devices.

Then again, I don't think most people even play their RPGs as games either. It's an interesting hobby that has evolved over time, and I don't think it has been accurately defined ever since most people stopped playing it as a game.

I've been attempting to resolve my thoughts into a coherent theory for a while now, but I haven't completely nailed it down yet.
 

Gnashtooth

First Post
I was interested in getting the PDF but was curious to see what the poster thought were its selling points. But after reading this article, I still have no idea why OD&D is still relevant. This read like an ad for Sworrds & Wizardry which felt like it was referenced more than OD&D.

Because that appears to be the MO of the people that post a large number of these articles: Bait people with an evocative title, then spiral into whatever it is they want to talk about, because you're already reading. Pretty sleazy behavior if you ask me. May as well just put "FREE BEER IF YOU CLICK HERE!" as the title, for what it's worth.

Compare and contrast: ENworld article titles and "One Wierd Trick" ads. Same tactic, different topics.

In sales, they call this "bait and switch", which has historically been punishable in court to varying degrees.
 

E

ExTSR

Guest
OD&D Combat: the Chainmail rules

I really, really wish I could go back in time to when Gary and Dave were putting together the combat system for OD&D...
Next Best Thing: Go to the GaryCon game convention (March 3-6, Lake Geneva) and ask Jeff Perren. He and Gary were the co-authors of the published Chainmail rules (Guidon Games of Evansville IN, 1971), referenced in OD&D as the recommended combat system.

Far more doable than time travel, I think. And the biggest advantage: you won't accidentally step on a butterfly and alter the 21st century.

F
 

Same here. At a Gen Con prior, I played Tunnels & Trolls as run by Ken St. Andre himself. The odds were against us from the beginning and my character died horribly. But oh were the two that made it out alive excited! And trying to use all our wits and all our luck to survive was a wonderful challenge. Would I want every adventure to be like that? No. But now and then it can be a lot of fun.

Considering that new retroclones are still being made and OD&D is still being released, sort of, I think it's still quite relevant.

In my gaming group, the play styles of each of us very much break down by what system each of us started gaming with. I think it's very important to understand prior editions, and even revisit them from time to time.


Even though I only occasionally play a "beat the game/challenge" style game, I love it when I get the chance. Surviving a death trap dungeon through player skill its extraordinarily fun for me, even though I'm normally more of a method actor player.
 

Long time lurker, first time registered poster... :) OD&D may seem very different and not as well-organized as later RPGs, but there have been decades of refinement in between now and then. However, that refinement does not mean that the original material is not able to produce just as enjoyable game-play as the modern ones. Much like comparing early music, with its often less sophisticated instruments, with a modern classical concert; there's enjoyment to be found in both.
 

Xavian Starsider

First Post
@Xavian
Unless you are interested in it for historical significance or just like to read and collect older systems; I wouldn't bother.

That's precisely the reason: the history. As a DM, I am particularly interested in seeing the monsters in their original purest form. I am very happy with 5th edition and have no intention to go Old School, but if, as this article suggests, OD&D has a unique perspective or insight of value to the modern day game, I am always willing to broaden my understanding. And it very well may. But the article failed to illustrate to me what it is, if so.

Gnashtooth said:
Because that appears to be the MO of the people that post a large number of these articles: Bait people with an evocative title, then spiral into whatever it is they want to talk about, because you're already reading. Pretty sleazy behavior if you ask me. May as well just put "FREE BEER IF YOU CLICK HERE!" as the title, for what it's worth.

I don't know if it was the author's intent of if his thoughts just got derailed from his intended purpose, but I definitely felt this article did not deliver what it promised. Seems I'm not the only one.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

pemerton

Legend
I agree with your frustration over the modern gaming orthodoxy that it's all about story-telling. First of all, you can't tell a story within the framework of a role-playing game. You can only explore a world and see what history gets created, or you can assent to a story told by someone else, or you can cobble together a shared narration and hope it turns into something resembling a story.
Just out of curiosity - is this conclusion based on extensive play of DitV, the various -World games, Burning Wheel, etc? These are games which are not based on world exploration, are not based on assenting to a story told by someone else, and are not based on cobbling a shared narration together. They aim to generate a story (not in the trivial sense of "a sequence of events involving overlapping personages" but in the sense in which a typical film or short story presents a story) by the playing of an RPG.

In this way they are quite different from (say) OD&D, 1st ed AD&D or Moldvay Basic.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
I think the biggest true evolution and refinement is about standardization of mechanics. I would argue (strongly) that having different mechanics for everything you want to do (bend bars/lift gate it's own thing, initiative its own thing, etc) is primitive game design. By the modern (and even not so modern) state of the technology it is bad design.
While I'd argue that in some cases it's excellent design, in that ultimately the best tool ends up being used for each job.

Sure you can strip your toolbox down to a hammer, saw and screwdriver and call yourself streamlined and efficient...until the job calls for a drill and you're stuck trying to poke a hole with your screwdriver because it's all you've got.

The same is true of game design. Who cares if bend bars/lift gates is the only element of the game that uses the bend bars/lift gates mechanic? It's the right tool for that particular task, and something is lost if you try to shoehorn it into using a different mechanic instead.

That's not to say all the mechanics are perfect; far from it. But the way to fix them is not to make them all the same, but to tweak each one independently until it works like it should without regard for whether it's the same as any other mechanic. And that's not bad design at all; in fact it's quite the opposite.

A big problem with modern design is the designers come up with a new mechanic that is excellent for some things and then try to force way too many other things to use it. Advantage in 5e is the current poster child for this - it's a great mechanic sometimes but shows up in far too many places where a different type of roll modifier would make more sense and-or just work better.

Lan-"having different independent mechanics for different things makes kitbashing much easier as well, as there's less chance for knock-on effects"-efan
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top