Why people like to play OD&D (1974)

[howandwhy99]

To my knowledge, we use the 3 main books published in 1974 with some of the supplements, some of The Strategic Revew and early Dragon magazine articles, and even some expanded monsters, spells, magic items from AD&D. I think this is pretty standard as the original rules really give more of a foundation to create the game you desire.

Some other additions:
Chainmail - This is really what we play most of the time. It includes 1 on 1 combat and scales up for larger miniature battles.

Outdoor Survival - This boardgame simulates survival in the wild and has many variations on how it can be played. This is pretty much our overland travel game.

Wooden Ships & Iron Men - This is for naval battles and sea travel. We haven't had cause to use it yet.

Of course, underground exploration, dungeon delving, monsters, magic item spells, and all the other basics are covered by Dungeons & Dragons(tm). It's important to note these 3 pamphlets really have no combat rules in them and require Chainmail to play.

The world we play in is a homebrew. I think this was pretty much the default assumption for gamers until the 1980 Greyhawk Gazetter came out. The original Greyhawk and Blackmoor books didn't have world descriptions so much as rule additions (like new classes (thief), monsters (demons & devils), and more) Worlds like Wilderlands and Arduin were probably out there being played, but I'm guessing most groups created their own. I would guess pulp fiction worlds for fantasy & scifi were used too. My own gaming didn't start until the mid-1980's, so my knowledge comes from hearing others' stories.

Diaglo uses a kitchen sink method for our own world and we get to make plenty of suggestions. About a year ago we learned we were travelling in "The Wilderlands of Harn" which are composed on a large island - all part of a larger empire across the sea called the "Grey" "Realms". I like that we can steal from anywhere and absolutely anything. No limits.

The rules are included through add-ons and Referree calls, so they can be as simple or complex as the group likes. Chainmail and D&D offer an organic method of rule creation rather than a unified one. (I posted a thread on this topic some time back). Essentially, if there is already a great wargame on the market that perfects one aspect of battle, why not use it instead trying to come up with a system of your own? I think that's why Diaglo chose the additons above. Given the boom in wargaming during the 60's and 70's, there were A LOT of rules to pick from. Chainmail was just the basic "medieval combat" game with D&D as a template on top.

 

[howandwhy99]

Starting at the beginning

We roll 3d6 in order.
Str
Int
Wis
Con
Dex
Cha

These stats each have an important in the game. They also influence what your character can do, but for the most part offer very little in the way of bonuses. They are only lightly imbedded within the combat system, but Diaglo might say differently. Each stat gives bonuses and penalties I believe just as they do in Basic D&D (& somewhat similarly in AD&D 1E)

The first 3 stats correspond to the 3 original Core Classes. (Fighting-Man, Magic-User, and Cleric). These are very much like the HP & AC rules - they are abstract and definied only in terms of combat ability. They are designed for easy use and understanding, but do not come right out and say how an attack works, how magic works, etc. Just like AC isn't tied to specific types of dodges and HPs to types of health, functioning limbs, or disease, neither are classes outside of basic combat abilities.

To my understanding, a lot of gamers wanted more definition in the 70's and early 80's. So many D&D-like games offered more complexities during combat. Combat was king after all. So instead of description for why your character was different, rules were tied in. But by adding complexities to the rules, the game also slowed down. I personally think Harn's system is by far the best of these game types, but I don't know if I'd give up our faster game speed for the differentiation. (and OD&D flies during combat!)
http://www.columbiagames.com/HarnPage/Harnpageindexnew.shtml
http://www.columbiagames.com/resources/4001/harnmaster-combattables.pdf

When creating a character you can give them as much definition as you please. These literally define the character. The stats aren't often changed during this process, but the PC can do everything you have created them to do. If you desire something unusual, the Ref can alter the rules to allow it. This flexibility and simple design methodolgy is one of the best parts of the game. The description you create literally ARE the rules for your character. What is the best character write up you've ever seen? That is what your character is. Every character write up, world exposition, magic item descriptions, etc. can be directly imported into the game. These are the rules in the world as long as they correspond to the Referees design. He or she adjudicates how the character design corresponds with the simple foundation originally supplied.

Other Character Classes The Thief was added in Greyhawk Supplement I as an additional Core class. I believe all other classes published since then for OD&D are Prestige Classes. These operate a little differently than the current PrCs in 3E. OD&D prestige classes are qualified for during character creation. Depending upon your rolls during character creation you can choose to take a PrC instead. These are more powerful classes, but are mitigated by having slower levelling times. Basically, the XP needed to advance each level is more.

Ability Scores In general, these have far, far less of an impact on your character's actual effectiveness than any other edition of the game I've read or played. We personally use the expanded strength optional rule (18/%) which inceases the standard +1 to hit for high strength to even higher values (18/100 = +3/+4dam). These and other changes after the core 3 books really began to emphasize the importance of stats in the game. Higher stats began to mean more powerful characters, allowing easier successes for the players, and no balancing mechanism.

Ability Score Requirements Like PrCs mentioned above, Races also have requirements. Races other than human are more powerful, but typically at one type of play. Elves are good F-M/M-Us, Dwarves are good F-M, and Hobbits are good T's. Instead of using higher XP charts to level, races received level limits instead. All this variation means that a starting 1st level party really has a wide degree of power between each character.

The interesting thing though, is all Core Class Humans (the default assumption) have NO Ability Score Requirements whatsoever. You can play a Str 3 Fighting-Man, Int 3 Magic-User, or Wis 3 Cleric. When stats are rolled, you pretty much pick the best class for the roll, then adjust them (2 for 1, 3 for 1 depending upon chosen class [Diaglo knows this better than I do]), or if your Ref allows: Roll Again.

 

[howandwhy99]

That pretty roughly covers ability scores, classes, prestige classes, and races. Monster races like those from Savage Species can be approximated too. And I think often were. If you want to play a Silver Dragon at 1st level, your Ref determines the feasibility (should it be weaker? how does it fit in the world? what are dragons in my world?, etc.) and then determines the XP charts based upon HD, Attack rolls, base AC, etc. I tihnk this was a real needed area of expansion for early D&D that 3E (and especially 3.5) took up.

Experience Points & Charts - to my knowledge Gold Pieces equaling XP is an AD&D 1E add on. But I know awarding XP for anything other than combat is really rather simple. I'm guessing most Refs did so even back 30 years ago. My own thinking for Class Specific XP is that each player was playing a different game. They are awarded XP for doing things that personify their character & class. So Thieves gain XP for stealing, Magic-Users for casting spells, Fighting Men for killing monsters (while everyone gets the last, F-M kill things better than pretty much any other class until high level).

The XP charts are not unified, but they do have a method to their madness. To illustrate, the lowest needed XP to achieve 2nd level for any class is 1,250 (for Thieves). The highest needed is 2,500 (for Magic-Users). All other classes and PrCs fall somewhere between this range. See the similarity? It's not that 2nd level thieves are as good as 1st level M-Us (far from it), but that the XP ranges themselves balance out the play. I think it's far from perfect, but the Chainmail combat system allows for a lot of leeway without breaking.

As you follow the XP charts upward in level, you can see that Thieves and M-U's level requirements never overlap. In other words, no character will ever be more than 1 level above another if they all have the same Total XP. I'm not saying this standard could not be changed for very powerful races/PrCs like the silver dragon above, but it does hold true for all core classes and the PrCs. This unique balancing feature was lost in following editions.

Also important to notice: XP requirements DOUBLE each level for each class (or rounded thereabouts). This is very much like the rule giving higher XP awards to lower level classes in 3.5. Think about it. It takes just as much XP to get to the next level (say 7) as it did to get every level your PC currently has. This means lower level characters (which are given the same XP award as every other PC) advance far more quickly. In fact, if you ignore class chart differences, a 1st level character will advance to 1 level behind the primary party in the time it takes for that party to advance only 1 level.

To be a little more clear: We start ALL new characters at 0 XP and 1st level. Death is pretty permanent. If the PC's XP total represents the achievements of the player with that PC, than beginning with anything more than zero is like a handicap in bowling - purposefully unbalanced to be fair. Some Refs will probably allow this, I know ours doesn't. It all depends on the group.

[another example for XP levelling above. For simplicity, say all PCs are Magic-Users. The whole party has the same XP Total for their character too. The party just reached 4th level exactly (10,001 xp) and now a new player starts at 1st level with another M-U (0xp). In the time it takes the entire party to gain an additional 10,000xp, the 4th level party will achieve 5th level (20,001 xp). During that time though, the 1st level M-U became 2nd, 3rd, and finally reached 4th level (10,001). At higher levels the difference between the characters will be even less remarkable.]

 

[CarlZog]

If you're old enough, you play it for nostalgia. If you're young, you play it as a historical exercise.

Carl

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

If you're old enough, you play it for nostalgia. If you're young, you play it as a historical exercise.

Umm, no. There are plenty of reasons to play OD&D rather than nostalgia or "historical curiosity." This thread has listed a bunch of them.

 

[Valdur]

Looks like the closest most of us have gotten to OD&D is the Basic D&D sets from the late 70's early 80's.

Anyone that know how close to OD&D are the Holmes/Moldvay/Mentzer versions of D&D?

 

[howandwhy99]

Anyone that know how close to OD&D are the Holmes/Moldvay/Mentzer versions of D&D?

The original edition was really created for the wargaming community. Pretty much all combat uses Chainmail which can easily be as complex as D20. (i.e. characters have facing, threaten squares, take AoOs, can have reach, ranged attackers can attack 2x in place of moving, initiative is rolled every round, etc.)

Holmes (edition 2) is greatly simplified. It's not really the Basic edition yet, however. Races are classes instead of being combined, levels go only from 1-3, many of the Chainmail options are absent. That said, it can be picked up fairly easily by kids under 10.

Moldvay/Mentzer (edition 3) I think these count as one version, I'm not sure. At the time these were published, the AD&D game was out and Basic became a full-fledged product line unto itself. I think the Holmes version was created as well because TSR knew AD&D was on the way.

The original rules are closer in form to AD&D than to Basic, but really don't qualify as either. OD&D has a lot of flexibility, so much of what was introduced in the other two games can easily be ported in.

The default game world from the modules and books (the Known World) was changed into Mystara for the Basic game. This is more something I've been told than can back up though. I'm not sure where the Known world saw print before Mystara. But I don't own the early Dragon mags.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Moldvay/Mentzer (edition 3) I think these count as one version, I'm not sure. At the time these were published, the AD&D game was out and Basic became a full-fledged product line unto itself. I think the Holmes version was created as well because TSR knew AD&D was on the way.

The "classic D&D" community tends to see them separately. Moldvay/Cook/Marsh is often called B/X (these have the Erol Otus cover art), and Mentzer (with the Elmore cover art) is BECMI or BECMI/RC.

Lots more info on the differences between those versions can be found here.

 

[howandwhy99]

Some ther interesting things I've picked up from playing:

Classes go from level 1-12 in general. So races stopping early really has less of an impact on their power. Plus, they are not required to retire and a nice Ref may let further bonuses come from play (increased wealth helps too). Also, with Basic or AD&D rules added your characters could easily go higher (say level 36 then immortal following Basic rules), but I know we play with 12th level as essentially Epic.

The granularity of the game is very big which is a significant difference from 3E where the granularity is fairly small. The differences in world power by character level are large. A +1 bonus from say a magic weapon has a big impact during a fight. This means all those +1 higher ground, cover bonuses, etc. all have greater impact during play.

Spells advanced pretty much like those on the 1E charts. So at low levels a M-U gets one and a Cleric 0. Spells are far fewer in the game, but those used are like canons on a battlefield: very powerful. Charm Person, for instance, is equivalent to Dominate Person in 1E. Hold Person or Sleep can easily mean your character's death. Knowing when to use these spells and what spells to pick relates back to the tactical side of things.

Armor class runs from 10 down to 0. Magic enhancements to armor affects the ability of another to hit you not your AC, so negative numbers don't occur. This is a slight change in P.O.V. I know, but some attacks/creatures can ignore magical enhancements. All this really means is: the Attack Roll is the the only roll Modified. The person who modifies rolls is mainly the Referee. So players have little to worry about when playing. Of course, finding our you own a magic sword (either by deduction or roleplay) means you can make modified rolls yourself, but this is all pretty much common knowledge. Everyone sees the dice rolled.

If you look carefully, you'll notice class bonuses to attack rolls, AC limits, and other modifiers pretty much even out for creatures of the same power level (like EL = +4 for a 4 PC party). These all differ by monster of course, by the point is: chance is not your friend. Combats of proper level could easily go either way. The real point of wargaming is tactics, to out think your opponent.

With spells being a rare but valuable commodity equipment becomes more of an asset. Food & encumbrance are tracked. So are all the items the PCs have on hand. I think this is why so many of the older games used equipment in so many novel ways. The 10' pole, a bucket of grease, rope, heck even towels are all potentially combat shifting items.

The character sheet is small and so are the statblocks. What each has in abundance though is open space. Our game moves so quickly the most important things to remember are not statistics or combat abilties, but roleplaying notes. Who are the NPCs we know? Who are our allies/hirelings/followers/contacts/etc.? Our list of items in our portable hole alone requires an Excel spreadsheet. All this means is a lot of what goes on doesn't relate to a statblock, but to the game played. The world moves and pretty fast. Diaglo does a great job of remembering all the details and there are probably 1000's. If we don't bother to remember what is important to us, we might end up in a tough spot without knowing how to create advantages for getting out.

 

[howandwhy99]

More things from maybe just our game:

Magic items in our game are pretty plentiful too. I'd say they are just as common as 1E & 2E, but I know we are advancing faster than our Ref would actually prefer. Magic items are great fun too. Just like spells. Instead of having a very cut & dried "this is what happens" magic, each is effected by the game world's own internal logic. (like say a Fireball filling all the gaps or a lightning bolt bouncing off walls). Learning exactly how magic operates is always a trial & error experience. This makes it often dangerous, but a heck of a lot of fun. Both items and spells are roughly given a description and not statistics. As you experiment you can learn what these descriptions really mean in the world (and thereby learn more about how the world works).

Another unique thing that may be specific to our game is religion. I remember rolling up my character Brother Ben and wondering what gods were available.
Diaglo: "Anything"
Me: "Anything?"
Diaglo: (with more emphasis) "Anything"
Me: "So I can worship Sifl and Olly the sock puppets, righteous saviors of the universe?"

Yep. This took me awhile to understand, but it all feeds back into the "anything is possible" flexibility of the game. It was my choice for what god I picked. If it was ludicrous and childish, that was because I picked it not because it wasn't allowed. In the end I chose the default religion I learned was general for most clerics in the world: good. But the definition of everything was left up to me. This was the same for everyone else beginning too. What we didn't learn until later was there are a plentiful number of religions/groups/creatures etc. etc. in the world. But it was learning them that was part of the fun. This learning aka exploration is a great big part of our game and brings that fresh-eyes feeling back when playing.

This is also why I've become a proponent for character class being more a signifier of player prowess than just an arbitrary number. Learning the rules (rule mastery) is only one part. World exploration also entails a great deal of expertise on the players' parts. It's a throwback opinion to be sure, but I like that learning is a real part of the game. It reminds me a bit of how roleplaying in educational environments works.

In order to get this in any game, just keep Player Knowledge==Character Knowledge. All learning as a player means improving the character. And it aids in stopping metagame thinking too, making it easier to stay in character. Pretty much any person old enough to talk could play with a competent referee and play the game. At starting rule knowledge was zero for all of us concerning OD&D, so just learning the basics and then expanding at our own pace from there was easy.

Lastly, I mentioned statblocks earlier, but didn't finish the idea. Stats are pretty minimal, but definition gives all the details. I don't referee games, but I would say this makes for a much easier time preparing. The real boatload of work comes from filling in the details. But these can be as much or little as the group wants. All those groups plotting, NPCs spread out across the land, potential conflicts brewiing, evil villians designing unfair fights to kill us. These all take time, but don't require nearly as much numbers work. They're a fun part of creating/running games too, so I can see why refereeing would be enjoyable.

EDIT: Philo, thanks for posting that.