Why people like to play OD&D (1974)

[RFisher]

Yeah, I don't agree with everything he says, but I thought he made some good points.

It would be quite surprising if anyone did agree with everything I say! Heck, I'm often discovering that I don't agree with everything I say. (^_^)

The "limited" v. "unlimited" is an interesting case. On the one hand, I do think that classic D&D's "limitations" make the game better. On the other hand, I don't find any of its "limitations" binding, but rather an invitation to fill in the blanks myself or break them.

No doubt the actually getting to play classic D&D--not just as a one-off--will have some additional impact on my opinions of it.

You can find the seeds of me learning & struggling to put all that stuff into words right here in this forum (& at DF). If I've written anything of value, I'm sure it was taught me by the community. I'm certainly glad that there are those who find my attempt to collect some of it together worth reading.

 

[Silver Moon]

The games does what it does very well. It is easy to learn, and in the confines of oD&D it all works well.

Well said. I've been an Assistant Scoutmaster and have brought the Red Box Set with me to summer camp. To get together a quick pick-up game with kids who have never gamed before there is nothing better. Other rules systems, even 1st Edition, take far too long to explain and generate characters at which point you've not only taken up valuable time that could have been spent gaming but you've also confused half the kids who wanted to play.

 

[Crothian]

Just a thought...does True20 have a more OD&D feel than 3.x?

I don't think it does. I think C&C might better feel that role.

 

[Rothe]

I have friends who were huge Fantasy Trip players back in the day and we may run a few sessions of that while my DM energies recharge. Sucks that only one guy has the books though so most of us will have no idea how thing work in this system.

Check this site out:
http://www.jgimmigration.com/tft/index.htm

It may explain how things work.

 

[jester47]

howandwhy99- if I could buy this game in one place I would definately play it. It sounds awesome.

It makes me want to play C&C.

My problem is I just don't have time to write my own stuff.

However, I think what you are getting at is how any edition of D&D should be played. I just got done reading "Mad God's Key" and that is a great adventure. But if I were to run it, I could see where I would put in a lot of hand waving for some of the rolls they called for.

I think a major point is that rules are there to help when there is a question. I like to think of rules as "nice to have." I think of it this way: The rules give us an idea of what is fair, but to be fair we don't necessarily have to follow the rules.

 

[diaglo]

howandwhy99- if I could buy this game in one place I would definately play it. It sounds awesome.

d00d, it is awesome.

the campaign i am refereeing and they (loki44, biorph, howandwhy99, skraper, and JoeBlank plus a few others) are playing was my submission for the WotC setting search.

i think the fact it was only the OD&D ruleset kinda made them reject it.

 

[oldschooler]

Check here for some additional insight:
http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=16189

A basic summary:

OD&D Classes (in very rough order of appearance):
Fighting-Man
Magic-User
Cleric
Thief
Paladin
Ranger
Bard
Illusionist
Monk
Assassin
Druid
Witch

OD&D races:
Human (default)
Elf
Dwarf
Hobbit (later changed to politically correct Halfling)
Half-Elf
Gnome
Other (including anything from Dragons and Balrogs to Orcs and Trolls)

Armor Class:
9 no armor
8 shield only
7 leather armor
6 leather armor with shield
5 chainmail
4 chainmail with shield
3 plate
2 plate with shield

Combat: either Chainmail miniature rules or roll 1d20 and compare to combat tables (crossreferencing attacker's Hit Dice with defender's Armor Class).
In original rules, all Hit Dice (PC and otherwise) and damage rolls were done with 1d6. Greyhawk Supplement added different dice to these values.
In original rules, all XP was 100 points per monster's HD, plus 1 point per GP retained after adventure. Greyhawk Supplement revised these numbers somewhat.
All of the above and any additions were subject to Referee approval (later called Dungeon Master in Supplement III: Eldritch Wizardry).

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Can someone refresh my memory on OD&D stat modifiers? IIRC, in the three booklets, Str, Int, and Wis only gave a bonus or penalty to experience (although Con gave a hp modifier, Dex a missle modifier, and Cha the hireling loyalty mods). What supplement expanded upon that -- was it Greyhawk?

 

[oldschooler]

The six scores were rated thus: Low score is 3-8; Average is 9-12; High is 13-18. Their purpose was to allow a Referee some abstract measure of each PC's abitilty to accomplish things not related to combat. When it came to climbing, swimming, influencing, sneaking, constuction, etc., etc., the scores were used as a guide.
Low scores would subtract 10%-20% from XP gained if it was a Prime Requisite (Primary Ability) or usually a -1 to various things otherwise. High scores would add 5%-10% to XP gained if it was a Prime Requisite, +1 to various other capabilities.
Constitution of 6 or less meant one less hit point per HD, a score of 15 or higher meant an additional hit point per HD.
Charisma was a bit different.
Supplement I: Greyhawk introduced Extraordinary Strength, with bigger bonuses if one's Exceptional score (i.e. natural roll of 18) meritted a percentile roll.
The Strategic Review/The Dragon (can't remember which) introduced Extraordinary Dexterity. Worked much like Strength, but was for the Thief class.
See my thread link above for more info

 

[Akrasia]

Robert Fisher's website is shock full of interesting remarks....

Thanks for that link. Lots of interesting procrastination reading there.