TheRPGSite

Pen & Paper Roleplaying Central => Pen and Paper Roleplaying Games (RPGs) Discussion => Topic started by: Shrieking Banshee on January 03, 2021, 06:49:39 AM

Title: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: Shrieking Banshee on January 03, 2021, 06:49:39 AM
This is something I'm having trouble understanding about people with a deific fondness for games that had rules but then you ignored them or made up your own. I won't lie and say that I haven't just fudged rules, or just rolled with whatever was happening to move the game along. But that was made on a foundation of rules I generally liked and could use as written most of the time. Because that was a product I paid for. Functional rules.

When I hear some people reminisce about old school games, the fact that the rules were such vague and contradicting, unfinished, unrefined, clusterfuck is talked about with deep fondness. That somehow having bad rules, or non-existent rules made it better because if it was bad, then you can ignore them and make your own. Or just improv all the time.

So wouldn't the logical endpoint just be an improv night without any rules at all? If consistent rules and character-building gets in the way of the DM telling the story he wants, why have any rules at all? Why not just write up a short story with some people occasionally assisting with minor suggestions for individual characters?

Fundamentally I believe everybody can have the fun they want. Really this is more conceptual confusion for me. Personally, I believe it's just nostalgia.
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: mAcular Chaotic on January 03, 2021, 06:55:45 AM
Overall the rules can be relied on. But for everyone there are different parts insufficient for them, and it’s there you exercise your creativity and truly make the game your own.
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: robh on January 03, 2021, 07:26:36 AM
Rules are necessary as a common frame of reference for players and GM.
Unless you are in a competition environment "games" are about maximising entertainment and enjoyment so it is inevitable that some rules will have more flexibility than others, but nothing should be possible in a game session that actually breaks one of the fundamental inflexible rules.

Also, having a set of rules to fall back on gives the GM an ability to balance the actions of a party and make sure that a couple of (or more commonly, one) character does not end up railroading an entire game session into going the way he/she wants.
There are other ways of doing it for sure, especially for experienced GMs, but it is important the existence of the "rule" is always there as a backstop.
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: VisionStorm on January 03, 2021, 08:10:48 AM
As I mentioned in the thread on "Is RPG Optimization Psychosis?", the OSR is an RPG cult obsessed with OD&D. It isn't about rational reasons why OD&D's ruleset is better, it's about working backwards from the supposition that it is, then seeing what they want to see in it. Like finding figures in a cloud. Even the absence of rules is seen as a feature that encourages creative problem solving, as opposed to the rule simply not existing because the designers didn't have time to write it (Dave Arneson originally wanted D&D to have skills, for example, according to Griffith Morgan (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZjrjVtzAyw&feature=emb_title) [don't remember the exact timestamp; might be near the end, though]), didn't consider it important to cover in the core rules at the time or only had so much page space available. And anyone that wants rules for certain things is derided as needing the rules to tell them what to do, lacking creativity (cuz apparently I'm not making up new rules or trying out different system mechanics all the time) or ruining the hobby.

There seems to be a disconnect between playstyle preferences, as well as anecdotal experience, and objective reality. And certain experiences or playstyle methods are seen as a product of the ruleset, as opposed to certain people playing that way for practical reasons or common player paranoia. I've seen people check every nook and cranny for traps in almost every game I've played--it isn't a BX exclusive thing! The existence of skills doesn't necessarily remove paranoid players. A lot of this is more a matter of culture than the system itself.

And this isn't even a new thing, I used to encounter people who gave similar defenses of BX back in the 90s, and they always had similar criticisms about 2e as many have today about 3e. They constantly complained about how AD&D was unbalanced, because you could have a character that was both a fighter AND an elf, and every time I brought up skills or non-weapon proficiencies they told me I didn't need them and that they could make anything up as DM.

Some people also seem to ignore that other people are willing to accept certain tradeoffs (such as added complexity or extended character creation) in exchange for having certain things in the game (like more character options), and understand that somethings always involve a give and take. So pointing out that tradeoffs exist doesn't make a ruleset that doesn't have them inherently superior, it just means that one ruleset incorporates certain components and the other doesn't. We know that a class-based system that also has skills and special abilities (feats, traits, whatever) is more complex and has longer character creation than one that doesn't. It's not a matter of "this game doesn't has all this extra crap that extends character creation, therefore it's better", it's a matter of what is it specifically that you want out of the game. If what you want is character details, then a simplified game system simply isn't gonna cut it, and no amount of touting the faster character creation speed of "roll 3d6 in order, pick the class you qualify for, you're set" is going to change that.
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: spon on January 03, 2021, 09:47:08 AM
I think it comes from the roots of OD&D - playing in a (refereed) fantasy wargaming campaign and playing characters within that milieu. There is an expectation that all players will have access to the same ruleset, that the rules won't cover everything and that the referee can be trusted to change/ignore/add any rule if they feel it appropriate.

To me that's all you need to explain "rule 0" and yet still have a bunch of rules that people are expected to play to.
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: Eirikrautha on January 03, 2021, 10:12:27 AM
This is something I'm having trouble understanding about people with a deific fondness for games that had rules but then you ignored them or made up your own. I won't lie and say that I haven't just fudged rules, or just rolled with whatever was happening to move the game along. But that was made on a foundation of rules I generally liked and could use as written most of the time. Because that was a product I paid for. Functional rules.

When I hear some people reminisce about old school games, the fact that the rules were such vague and contradicting, unfinished, unrefined, clusterfuck is talked about with deep fondness. That somehow having bad rules, or non-existent rules made it better because if it was bad, then you can ignore them and make your own. Or just improv all the time.

So wouldn't the logical endpoint just be an improv night without any rules at all? If consistent rules and character-building gets in the way of the DM telling the story he wants, why have any rules at all? Why not just write up a short story with some people occasionally assisting with minor suggestions for individual characters?

Fundamentally I believe everybody can have the fun they want. Really this is more conceptual confusion for me. Personally, I believe it's just nostalgia.

Anyone who has ever houseruled is guilty of "ignor[ing] them or ma[king] up your own."  It's about what the rules are meant to represent and what you are trying to do with them.  I would argue, because the rules evolved from wargaming, that the original intent of the rules were to simulate reality, and that they rules grew and changed to simulate a particular fantasy "reality."  If you approach the rules as attempts to quantify the possible outcomes of a real problem, then no one ruleset is going to be able to effectively simulate those outcomes.  You will constantly have edge cases and "unrealistic" results from your rules that you will need to ignore or develop secondary mechanisms to handle.  Hence the "rulings, not rules" mentality you hear associated with "old school" gaming.

On the other hand, as RPG rulesets evolved, players and GMs began to incorporate some of the results of the rules that were counter to reality into the actual fiction of the worlds.  So the characters, in the fictional world, would expect the outcomes of their attempts to follow a logic based on the mechanics of the game system, and not the logic of our reality.  This actually makes life somewhat easier for the players, as they can more accurately predict the outcome of their efforts.  But it also makes life harder for the DM, through both the need to stretch these counter-reality outcomes to their logical conclusion in his game world and through managing the difference between player expectations based on mechanics vs. the fiction of the world.

I won't use terms like "simulationism" or "gamism," as they have too much baggage and outside connotations, but the battle for primacy between the idea that reality creates the mechanics or that the mechanics shape reality is a fundamental concern for any game system.  It's also something that very few games address directly.

So it's easy to understand why gamers who grew up viewing their rulesets as attempts to guide them through the resolution of "reality-based" situations would prefer systems where incompleteness and inadequacy are base assumptions of the ruleset.  Likewise, gamers who see the ruleset as proscribing the behavior of the fiction (often due to the influence of video game RPGs, I think, because in that medium the rules/coding does determine the width and breadth of the world and its behavior) are uncomfortable with the idea that the rules aren't all encompassing.  It's a difference of expectation as to what your RPG "tools" are meant to accomplish.
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: Shrieking Banshee on January 03, 2021, 11:42:24 AM
Anyone who has ever houseruled is guilty of "ignor[ing] them or ma[king] up your own."  It's about what the rules are meant to represent and what you are trying to do with them.  I would argue, because the rules evolved from wargaming, that the original intent of the rules were to simulate reality, and that they rules grew and changed to simulate a particular fantasy "reality."  If you approach the rules as attempts to quantify the possible outcomes of a real problem, then no one ruleset is going to be able to effectively simulate those outcomes.  You will constantly have edge cases and "unrealistic" results from your rules that you will need to ignore or develop secondary mechanisms to handle.  Hence the "rulings, not rules" mentality you hear associated with "old school" gaming.

I find so much of this largely inaccurate. Because wargames mimick an enjoyable combat simulation meant to be fun for both players. Any mimicry of reality is ultimately aside from this experience.

Quote
So it's easy to understand why gamers who grew up viewing their rulesets as attempts to guide them through the resolution of "reality-based" situations would prefer systems where incompleteness and inadequacy are base assumptions of the ruleset.

I also find your assumptions on why people might like things more spelled out to be disconnected from why people ultimately like such systems or experiences. This is more a way to fluff up your own interests.

But ultimately you didn't answer my question. Which was:

Why do you prefer BAD rules, on the principle that you can ignore them? With all the touting of how 'Rulings not rules' OD&D was, one would think it would be a single page with 'I dunno roll a 20' on it. But it's not. Its pages and pages of contradictory (mostly just unfinished) resolution mechanics, with specific examples and things to do in multiple scenarious.

OD&D is far from rules-lite. It's more just fragmented. It's very rules-heavy in many ways. With pages and pages of how stuff interacts, specific effects, powers and abilities.
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: Zalman on January 03, 2021, 11:46:20 AM
When I hear some people reminisce about old school games, the fact that the rules were such vague and contradicting, unfinished, unrefined, clusterfuck is talked about with deep fondness. That somehow having bad rules, or non-existent rules made it better because if it was bad, then you can ignore them and make your own. Or just improv all the time.

So wouldn't the logical endpoint just be an improv night without any rules at all?

No!

The key point here is you can "make your own" rules. That doesn't mean the rules don't exist during play, it just means that the players have derived a modified (or codified) set of rules from those vague and contradicting ones. That's very different from not having rules at all, which would be, as you suggest, "just improv".

The reason folks like those vague and contradictory rules is because they like making up their own rules!
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: Shrieking Banshee on January 03, 2021, 12:00:56 PM
The reason folks like those vague and contradictory rules is because they like making up their own rules!

So why not have no rules, or a foundation of actual good rules (to ignore)?

Why insist to keep the bathwater with the baby?
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: Thondor on January 03, 2021, 12:06:19 PM
The key point here is you can "make your own" rules. That doesn't mean the rules don't exist during play, it just means that the players have derived a modified (or codified) set of rules from those vague and contradicting ones. That's very different from not having rules at all, which would be, as you suggest, "just improv".

The reason folks like those vague and contradictory rules is because they like making up their own rules!

I think this is pretty accurate.
I think it is also helpful to think about the fact that the Arneson and Gygax both liked creating rules . . . that's where a lot of the fun of the experience of running a game was for them. Why wouldn't every GM want to create rules to make the game work better for them?

This is similar to both of them being a little baffled as to why people wanted to buy setting books -- making up the campaign world was part of the fun.

Champions of ZED (a tome that tries to unify the varying approaches in a number of drafts and documents around the publication of OD&D) in has three kinds of combat in it! A quick partial quote from CoZED "the expectation within the source materials that Referee's will customize their methods of resolving combat."
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: Arnman on January 03, 2021, 12:10:46 PM
I doubt OD&D was played as much as you are led to believe.  Everyone I knew from '77 played OD&D structure but used the AD&D Player Handbook and the AD&D Monster Manual.  I had the Monster Manual just before Christmas of '77 and bought the Player Handbook a month or so later.  The AD&D GM Guide wasn't out of another year and a half.  Most of the Youtube players I see are players that started in the early 80's are are playing Basic D&D.  There are only a handful of rule changes but mostly rule clarifications.  Most of the house rules are additions to the rules and those additions were encouraged by the rules.
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: Two Crows on January 03, 2021, 12:12:04 PM
This is something I'm having trouble understanding about people with a deific fondness for games that had rules but then you ignored them or made up your own.

...

So wouldn't the logical endpoint just be an improv night without any rules at all? If consistent rules and character-building gets in the way of the DM telling the story he wants, why have any rules at all? Why not just write up a short story with some people occasionally assisting with minor suggestions for individual characters?


I think the best context to understand the nuance here is with a parallel argument;

"If one likes to salt their food, wouldn't the logical conclusion be to simply have a Salt Lick?"

When dealing with tastes and preferences, shades and nuance are vital, and virtually nothing exists in a dichotomy.  This holds for food, paintings, music, film, and so forth.  It seems perfect reasonable to expect the same level of distinction of degrees in role-playing games, to my way of thinking.
 
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: Shrieking Banshee on January 03, 2021, 12:19:08 PM
I think the best context to understand the nuance here is with a parallel argument;

"If one likes to salt their food, wouldn't the logical conclusion be to simply have a Salt Lick?"

Il counter with:

'If one likes to salt their food, does the food itself have to be of poor quality? And indeed if the food's quality is irrelevant, then yes why not a salt lick?'
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: Two Crows on January 03, 2021, 12:20:39 PM
I think the best context to understand the nuance here is with a parallel argument;

"If one likes to salt their food, wouldn't the logical conclusion be to simply have a Salt Lick?"

Il counter with:

'If one likes to salt their food, does the food itself have to be of poor quality? And indeed if the food's quality is irrelevant, then yes why not a salt lick?'

Ah, but that is not a counter, you have shifted the statement from a question of taste into a judgement of them.

Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: christopherkubasik on January 03, 2021, 12:21:39 PM
But ultimately you didn't answer my question. Which was:

Why do you prefer BAD rules, on the principle that you can ignore them? With all the touting of how 'Rulings not rules' OD&D was, one would think it would be a single page with 'I dunno roll a 20' on it. But it's not. Its pages and pages of contradictory (mostly just unfinished) resolution mechanics, with specific examples and things to do in multiple scenarious.

OD&D is far from rules-lite. It's more just fragmented. It's very rules-heavy in many ways. With pages and pages of how stuff interacts, specific effects, powers and abilities.

Shrieking Banshee, is it fair to assume you’ve typed these questions without having played OD&D or even having read the rules recently?

I ask this because some of your base assumptions are contrary to reality, or, as the least, contrary to my experiences running my current OD&D game.

Specifics: I’m not ignoring any of the rules in the game. (Some people might?) I do make judgments and rulings when the game rules don’t cover a situation. But I used the rules that are there.

I have no idea where you get the “rules heavy” part from. The core rules can be placed on a two sides of a sheet of 8.5 x 11 paper.

Finally, the “nostalgia” argument, as common as it is, is and always will be, bullshit. I played AD&D decades ago. But never played OD&D. My four players never played any D&D before 3rd edition. The idea they are playing for nostalgic reasons is nonsensical, since they have no experience with the rules set we are using.

(While I’ve been playing games for decades, by the way, the types of RPGs I’ve played is quite broad. I have no attachment to OSR games specifically. But they have their own pleasure.)

I chose the rules because we started the game online, so I could stay connected with people I enjoy. The rules system is simple, and so I didn’t have to have them flipping through lots of rules. I want to make sure we spend more time talking with each other than looking up rules, so a system that lets us talk out ideas and possible logic and consequences of their actions makes more sense to me, and is more enjoyable, than a system that we’d always be looking at our character sheet and rolling dice.

OD&D might not be a game that you enjoy. But your summation of it, as is so often the case in posts like this, lacks any clear observations that you’ve done any play with the game itself.
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: Thondor on January 03, 2021, 12:23:29 PM
The reason folks like those vague and contradictory rules is because they like making up their own rules!

So why not have no rules, or a foundation of actual good rules (to ignore)?

Why insist to keep the bathwater with the baby?

The real innovation of OD&D -- the great "rules" it has are actually the first principles of RPG play that exist in pretty much every RPG since. The actual mechanics aren't nearly as important.

Some of those first principles are thing's like:
There is a GM (referee) who creates and controls the world.
You control a character on an adventure.
The referee asks you "What do you do?"
The referee then uses the rules or a ruling to allow you to do anything that a real person could do.
Dungeons!
Monsters!


Story-games often change one of the first principles above in some fashion and this is why some feel they aren't RPGs.



Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: Two Crows on January 03, 2021, 12:24:58 PM
Also, just how many OD&D players are on this website?

I've been playing D&D since the early 80's and I don't think I've met enough people who actually played pre-1st Ed AD&D to play Bridge with.

Or has everything pre-D20 become labeled "OD&D" now?


- Various notes:

Skills/Non-weapon Proficiencies were in 1st Ed.  They showed up in the Dungeoneers Survival Guide.

- The Wargame Clubs that gave birth to RPG's had GM's (who you told what you did), had monsters (they often played the battles from LOTR), etc.  What they had never had was the player controlling a single identity.  It was a LARP that inspired the idea of what wargamers would call a "man-level refereed wargame".
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: Thondor on January 03, 2021, 12:28:04 PM
Also, just how many OD&D players are on this website?

I've been playing D&D since the early 80's and I don't think I've met enough people who actually played pre-1st Ed. to play Bridge with.

Or has everything pre-D20 become labeled "OD&D" now?
I admit I have only played a few relatively short games that could be considered OD&D. My old school games have tended to be 1e/OSRIC.
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: Shrieking Banshee on January 03, 2021, 12:28:38 PM
Shrieking Banshee, is it fair to assume you’ve typed these questions without having played OD&D or even having read the rules recently?

Reading the rules recently after years of having it hyped up is what caused me to post these questions. Of course, what constitutes 'OD&D' rules changes massively within the first few years of release as the content was added and removed.

Often your talk about rules fitting on a postcard is accurate because the rules use vague terminology or just reference chainmail. That's not clever design nor does it speak too elegant minimalist rules.

Ah, but that is not a counter, you have shifted the statement from a question of taste into a judgement of them.

Almost all questions require a degree of judgment.

But perhaps more specifically: 'Why not get food that's more amicable to salt? You talk about just how much you like salt and how terrible all modern food is for not having enough salt in it when the food you loved to eat was watermelon. You just added the salt later. And if adding the salt later is all it takes, how can you judge modern food for not having enough salt in it? Its more a case of judging the modern diner for not adding enough salt to the food they eat".
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: Two Crows on January 03, 2021, 12:39:55 PM
Almost all questions require a degree of judgment.

But perhaps more specifically: 'Why not get food that's more amicable to salt? You talk about just how much you like salt and how terrible all modern food is for not having enough salt in it when the food you loved to eat was watermelon. You just added the salt later. And if adding the salt later is all it takes, how can you judge modern food for not having enough salt in it? Its more a case of judging the modern diner for not adding enough salt to the food they eat".

Who judges what is "amicable to salt"?

You are not asking why people like the rule structure, you are looking for someone to justify the structure to you.  They are not the same.  It may be ultimately that you have no taste for that style of rule. 

You simply can not make universal statement of quality when it comes to matters of personal taste.

No matter what you or I think of a fried Peanut Butter & Banana Sandwich, Elvis loved 'em.  He is not going to be "wrong" in any objective sense.  Nor will his taste be "poor", "inferior", or what ever relative judgmental evaluative term anyone desires to use, beyond expressing their personal opinion.

There are no "better" rules. 
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: christopherkubasik on January 03, 2021, 12:40:04 PM
I’m playing OD&D Volumes I, II, and III.

I never said the rules fit on a postcard. But I can see what sort of games you’ll be playing from how you’ll alter my words.

In any case, it’s clear you have no actual curiosity about the matter. Not a big deal of course. But there it is.
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: Pat on January 03, 2021, 01:09:50 PM
There are no "better" rules.
That's objectively false. Our desires and motives are subjective, but rules are means of achieving those ends. So given a certain set of preferences, some rules are better than others. And some rules don't help achieve any reasonable set of goals.

It's fine to talk about the subjectivity of preferences, and there's plenty of room for interpretation on the effectiveness of different rules, but rules can nonetheless be graded based on how they help meet different sets of preferences.
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: Eirikrautha on January 03, 2021, 01:21:46 PM
Anyone who has ever houseruled is guilty of "ignor[ing] them or ma[king] up your own."  It's about what the rules are meant to represent and what you are trying to do with them.  I would argue, because the rules evolved from wargaming, that the original intent of the rules were to simulate reality, and that they rules grew and changed to simulate a particular fantasy "reality."  If you approach the rules as attempts to quantify the possible outcomes of a real problem, then no one ruleset is going to be able to effectively simulate those outcomes.  You will constantly have edge cases and "unrealistic" results from your rules that you will need to ignore or develop secondary mechanisms to handle.  Hence the "rulings, not rules" mentality you hear associated with "old school" gaming.

I find so much of this largely inaccurate. Because wargames mimick an enjoyable combat simulation meant to be fun for both players. Any mimicry of reality is ultimately aside from this experience.

Quote
So it's easy to understand why gamers who grew up viewing their rulesets as attempts to guide them through the resolution of "reality-based" situations would prefer systems where incompleteness and inadequacy are base assumptions of the ruleset.

I also find your assumptions on why people might like things more spelled out to be disconnected from why people ultimately like such systems or experiences. This is more a way to fluff up your own interests.

But ultimately you didn't answer my question. Which was:

Why do you prefer BAD rules, on the principle that you can ignore them? With all the touting of how 'Rulings not rules' OD&D was, one would think it would be a single page with 'I dunno roll a 20' on it. But it's not. Its pages and pages of contradictory (mostly just unfinished) resolution mechanics, with specific examples and things to do in multiple scenarious.

OD&D is far from rules-lite. It's more just fragmented. It's very rules-heavy in many ways. With pages and pages of how stuff interacts, specific effects, powers and abilities.

The reason you don't understand is because you refuse to.  You have rejected out of hand the most probable reason for this.  The idea that wargamers feel that "mimicry of reality is ultimately aside from [the enjoyable] experience" is belied by many of the documents of the time.  Not only did wargames develop as a military tool specifically to realistically simulate military engagements, but also many of the players are doing so as a speculative exercise, dependent on the realism of the game.  The same people who wargame are the same people who argue about what would have happened had Pickett not charged, and they want their game to help represent those outcomes.

So what you consider "bad" rules are just rules that have been glommed together, each intending to simulate a certain kind of thing.  They evolved over time; they weren't developed based off of a unified vision or mechanic.  And, because of this, they might seem more realistic than systems developed later based on a system-based perspective to some people.  But you've already defined the terms of discussion to reject the obvious reasons, so you'll never understand.

You are also being grossly unfair to early RPGs.  It would be like asking why people like to collect or drive Model Ts, when modern cars have so many new inventions.  Well, for some people, the feel is better.  The same is true with RPGs.  Those early RPGs have a very different feel than later, more cohesively designed games.  Maybe it's not for you.  But unified-systems games are not objectively "better."  Which is what you seem to be suggesting...
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: VisionStorm on January 03, 2021, 01:39:00 PM
When I hear some people reminisce about old school games, the fact that the rules were such vague and contradicting, unfinished, unrefined, clusterfuck is talked about with deep fondness. That somehow having bad rules, or non-existent rules made it better because if it was bad, then you can ignore them and make your own. Or just improv all the time.

So wouldn't the logical endpoint just be an improv night without any rules at all?

No!

The key point here is you can "make your own" rules. That doesn't mean the rules don't exist during play, it just means that the players have derived a modified (or codified) set of rules from those vague and contradicting ones. That's very different from not having rules at all, which would be, as you suggest, "just improv".

The reason folks like those vague and contradictory rules is because they like making up their own rules!

But you can make your own rules out of any edition of D&D or any other game system. I used to have tons of rules and options based out of AD&D 2e, to the point where my game became unrecognizable from the original. OD&D/BX isn't unique to that, but it still gets held as the gold standard for some insane reason, like early RPG designers not knowing how to write a game is somehow a good thing because "I like to make my own rules", which is a completely unrelated point to whether a rule is well written or good, and isn't even unique to OD&D.
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: Abraxus on January 03, 2021, 01:59:32 PM
But you can make your own rules out of any edition of D&D or any other game system. I used to have tons of rules and options based out of AD&D 2e, to the point where my game became unrecognizable from the original. OD&D/BX isn't unique to that, but it still gets held as the gold standard for some insane reason, like early RPG designers not knowing how to write a game is somehow a good thing because "I like to make my own rules", which is a completely unrelated point to whether a rule is well written or good, and isn't even unique to OD&D.

Its like in many older products from Palladium books where Kevin would essentially say "Remember all rules are optional!" and no longer does so because it's an excuse at least on his end to hide all the flaws of the Palladium ruleset and kind of defeats the purpose of someone buying the rules in the first place. I am not spending money on rpg to be told to make it up. Note many newer fans who like 4E and 5E tend to do the same thing and can be very vocal. The D&D Grognards always seem to have the same counter arguments as to why pre-#E was golden age.

"You obviously have not read let alone understand the rules"
"You don't get OSR rpgs and the movement in general"

and so on. It was the same in the other thread as it is in this one. I houserule when I need to and I hate it. I like using RAW as possible and it's not my fucking job to fix any issues or flaws with an older set of rules.

I enjoyed and still enjoy D&D as it was my first rpg to this hobby and with the right DM would still join and maybe ever run a campaign. I can also acknowledge that the Pre-3E D&D is far from perfect. Looking at the 1E DMG much of what Gary gave as advice was very adversarial style of approaching DMing and making very much as DM vs player Not to mention that the Players should not have access to the DMG in the introduction to the DMG was fucking epic levels of stupid imo. How is a player going to ever learn how to be a DMG without the book on how to run the game in the first place.

In any case I expect to be told "You simply don't get the OSR or learn to read" etc..
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: mightybrain on January 03, 2021, 02:12:15 PM
Looking at the 1E DMG much of what Gary gave as advice was very adversarial style of approaching DMing and making very much as DM vs player Not to mention that the Players should not have access to the DMG in the introduction to the DMG was fucking epic levels of stupid imo.

I always took that as tongue in cheek. He didn't say they should not have access, he said any player reading it was "less than worthy of honorable death." It's clearly a joke. He wasn't suggesting you should actually kill your players to stop them from becoming DMs.
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: Two Crows on January 03, 2021, 02:21:36 PM
There are no "better" rules.
That's objectively false. Our desires and motives are subjective, but rules are means of achieving those ends. So given a certain set of preferences, some rules are better than others. And some rules don't help achieve any reasonable set of goals.

It's fine to talk about the subjectivity of preferences, and there's plenty of room for interpretation on the effectiveness of different rules, but rules can nonetheless be graded based on how they help meet different sets of preferences.

You've lost me.

You claim my statement is objectively false, then go on to explain how it is true, except for your imposition of "reasonable set of goals" ... which is in itself a subjective standard.

Pretend for a second that your taste and desire deviates from mine, and that you are not the authority of what is "reasonable"; What makes a rule "better"?

Give a specific example, please.  And keep in mind the OP, with it's foundation of "why choose rules that require arbitration/abandonment-at-will" when making your selection.

Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: Shrieking Banshee on January 03, 2021, 02:22:13 PM
To be clear: I'm actually gravitating to OSR OD&D inspired games, away from D&D 3e and pathfinder. I'm actually not against houserules and the like.

But the emphasis on the inspired. If the rules are to fit on a postcard, its because they fit on a postcard. If the rules ask for improv: Its not because the writer referenced compendium G (when G doesn't exist).

The reason you don't understand is because you refuse to.  You have rejected out of hand the most probable reason for this.  The idea that wargamers feel that "mimicry of reality is ultimately aside from [the enjoyable] experience" is belied by many of the documents of the time.  Not only did wargames develop as a military tool specifically to realistically simulate military engagements, but also many of the players are doing so as a speculative exercise, dependent on the realism of the game.  The same people who wargame are the same people who argue about what would have happened had Pickett not charged, and they want their game to help represent those outcomes.

So armchair generals think that battlefield conditions can really accurately be gathered by the roll of a d8 (or 800 rolls of the d8). I guess things don't really change with age or time.

'Nathaniel! Put away your damn dolls!'
"Their not dolls ma! Their war miniatures to accurately simulate warfare!'

The amount of ego at play here is staggering.
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: Eirikrautha on January 03, 2021, 02:31:04 PM
To be clear: I'm actually gravitating to OSR OD&D inspired games, away from D&D 3e and pathfinder. I'm actually not against houserules and the like.

But the emphasis on the inspired. If the rules are to fit on a postcard, its because they fit on a postcard. If the rules ask for improv: Its not because the writer referenced compendium G (when G doesn't exist).

The reason you don't understand is because you refuse to.  You have rejected out of hand the most probable reason for this.  The idea that wargamers feel that "mimicry of reality is ultimately aside from [the enjoyable] experience" is belied by many of the documents of the time.  Not only did wargames develop as a military tool specifically to realistically simulate military engagements, but also many of the players are doing so as a speculative exercise, dependent on the realism of the game.  The same people who wargame are the same people who argue about what would have happened had Pickett not charged, and they want their game to help represent those outcomes.

So armchair generals think that battlefield conditions can really accurately be gathered by the roll of a d8 (or 800 rolls of the d8). I guess things don't really change with age or time.

'Nathaniel! Put away your damn dolls!'
"Their not dolls ma! Their war miniatures to accurately simulate warfare!'

The amount of ego at play here is staggering.

Your last statement is embarrassingly true.  Wargames were not invented by armchair generals, but real generals.  Look up the history of wargaming.  Even today, wargaming is a serious pursuit in the military, with lots of resources expended to try and accurately simulate even the most subjective of variables (like morale).  While the precursors of RPGs may not have had the kinds of resources and detail behind them as a full modern military simulation, they are fruit of the same tree.  And they were state-of-the-art for their time, which became adopted by civilians for entertainment as well.  Dude, you should stop talking while you are behind...
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: Krugus on January 03, 2021, 02:31:32 PM
For me the rules are just the base to work with.   If I find a rule that does not fit in how my World works then I change it to fit my world.  I don't change my world to fit the rules.  I am after all the DM/GM.
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: Abraxus on January 03, 2021, 02:33:27 PM
I always took that as tongue in cheek. He didn't say they should not have access, he said any player reading it was "less than worthy of honorable death." It's clearly a joke. He wasn't suggesting you should actually kill your players to stop them from becoming DMs.

I know it was a joke except too many would have used it as an excuse to make sure no one else had access to the DMG. Many also took what he wrote as gosepl truth on how to run a game. Much of it was useful much was just way too DM vs player style kind of advice to my liking.
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: JeffB on January 03, 2021, 02:36:36 PM
Another thread of "you are doing it wrong" when it comes to make believe fairies and elves. Doesn't this forum get sick of this tired old conversation?

Also add me to the bridge group- started out LBB'ing in  77.
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: Two Crows on January 03, 2021, 02:38:56 PM
I used to be a wargamer. 

(at the risk of writing for someone else) I think what Eirikrautha is trying to explain about the era was the recognition that rules could not simulate reality.  Simply by knowing what the mechanics involved, the systems could be "gamed" in a manner which did not realistically represent the military action being simulated, which is where arbitration came in.
(E.g. in a real battle, nobody decides what to do based on their relative Initiative Modifiers) 

Sidenote: Actually, the original purpose of the referee was hidden enemy movement/location/lack of perfect intelligence, but it grew from there.

Remember these were played competitively (players were trying to Win).  "Spirit of the game" often was cast out of the window.

Some wargames did try to create rules for EVERYTHING, so that no arbitration would be needed (see ASL and it's encyclopedic rules).

So why use any rules at all?  Because without ANY rules, you are in no way attempting to simulate the action being represented.  You are just asking the referee what they think would have happened.  But without any arbitration, your stuck within the limits of whatever rules the game has.
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: Pat on January 03, 2021, 02:42:43 PM
There are no "better" rules.
That's objectively false. Our desires and motives are subjective, but rules are means of achieving those ends. So given a certain set of preferences, some rules are better than others. And some rules don't help achieve any reasonable set of goals.

It's fine to talk about the subjectivity of preferences, and there's plenty of room for interpretation on the effectiveness of different rules, but rules can nonetheless be graded based on how they help meet different sets of preferences.

You've lost me.

You claim my statement is objectively false, then go on to explain how it is true, except for your imposition of "reasonable set of goals" ... which is in itself a subjective standard.

Pretend for a second that your taste and desire deviates from mine, and that you are not the authority of what is "reasonable"; What makes a rule "better"?

Give a specific example, please.  And keep in mind the OP, with it's foundation of "why choose rules that require arbitration/abandonment-at-will" when making your selection.
It's objectively false because while your goals are subjective, we can objectively talk about what rules meet those goals better. For instance, if one of your major goals is to have fun, and you find being hit not fun, then a rule that involves you being punched by the person next to you is, objectively, poor at meeting your goals. (If it's not obvious, that's a deliberately over the top example because it illustrates the point more clearly. With more reasonable rules, there's a wider range of interpretation.)

You're correct that there's a degree of subjectivity in anything that touches on human preferences. But that doesn't erase objectivity entirely. We just have to couch our discussions of the rules in terms of meeting certain goals, instead of being better/worse in some absolute sense.
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: Eirikrautha on January 03, 2021, 02:43:19 PM
I used to be a wargamer. 

(at the risk of writing for someone else) I think what Eirikrautha is trying to explain about the era was the recognition that rules could not simulate reality.  Simply by knowing what the mechanics involved, the systems could be "gamed" in a manner which did not realistically represent the military action being simulated, which is where arbitration came in.
(E.g. in a real battle, nobody decides what to do based on their relative Initiative Modifiers) 

Sidenote: Actually, the original purpose of the referee was hidden enemy movement/location/lack of perfect intelligence, but it grew from there.

Remember these were played competitively (players were trying to Win).  "Spirit of the game" often was cast out of the window.

Some wargames did try to create rules for EVERYTHING, so that no arbitration would be needed (see ASL and it's encyclopedic rules).

So why use any rules at all?  Because without ANY rules, you are in no way attempting to simulate the action being represented.  You are just asking the referee what they think would have happened.  But without any arbitration, your stuck within the limits of whatever rules the game has.

That's not exactly what I was addressing, but I agree with what you have said above.  No one expected a set of rules to adjudicate every circumstance, hence the accumulation of edge-case rules.
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: VisionStorm on January 03, 2021, 02:50:47 PM
But you can make your own rules out of any edition of D&D or any other game system. I used to have tons of rules and options based out of AD&D 2e, to the point where my game became unrecognizable from the original. OD&D/BX isn't unique to that, but it still gets held as the gold standard for some insane reason, like early RPG designers not knowing how to write a game is somehow a good thing because "I like to make my own rules", which is a completely unrelated point to whether a rule is well written or good, and isn't even unique to OD&D.

Its like in many older products from Palladium books where Kevin would essentially say "Remember all rules are optional!" and no longer does so because it's an excuse at least on his end to hide all the flaws of the Palladium ruleset and kind of defeats the purpose of someone buying the rules in the first place. I am not spending money on rpg to be told to make it up. Note many newer fans who like 4E and 5E tend to do the same thing and can be very vocal. The D&D Grognards always seem to have the same counter arguments as to why pre-#E was golden age.

"You obviously have not read let alone understand the rules"
"You don't get OSR rpgs and the movement in general"

and so on. It was the same in the other thread as it is in this one. I houserule when I need to and I hate it. I like using RAW as possible and it's not my fucking job to fix any issues or flaws with an older set of rules.

I enjoyed and still enjoy D&D as it was my first rpg to this hobby and with the right DM would still join and maybe ever run a campaign. I can also acknowledge that the Pre-3E D&D is far from perfect. Looking at the 1E DMG much of what Gary gave as advice was very adversarial style of approaching DMing and making very much as DM vs player Not to mention that the Players should not have access to the DMG in the introduction to the DMG was fucking epic levels of stupid imo. How is a player going to ever learn how to be a DMG without the book on how to run the game in the first place.

In any case I expect to be told "You simply don't get the OSR or learn to read" etc..

I actually like making up my own rules and it's turned into a side hobby of mine I engage on even when I don't play regularly, sometimes just as a thought experiment. But I don't always have time to rewrite every rule I don't like and some rules would take too much effort to revamp entire sections of the rules or are more trouble than they're worth. Having too many house rules can also create inconsistencies, and even when the rules work for what you've set them up, they can still create confusion with players that are more familiar with the RAW.

Plus I shouldn't have to rewrite a game if I want the rules to make sense--at that point, then WTF is the point of paying for the manuals if I have to do all the real work? I can do that on my own. And just because I like fiddling with the rules that doesn't mean everybody else will too, or that a badly written rule is good because "I like to make my own rules". That's the kind of logic that doesn't follow, yet I see it come up every time someone praises OD&D.

Incidentally, Palladium games are also one of those systems I wouldn't be able to play without house ruling the hell out of them. There's so much clunky crap I haven't had to deal with in ages, I wouldn't even know where to start. Actually, MDC being SDC x 100, would be the first thing to go--I'd probably drop it to just SDC x 10 as a precondition for me to even consider running those games. But there's so much other crap that also doesn't work it's mentally staggering to even contemplate.

As for Pre-3e vs Post 3e D&D, I think all editions suck for different reasons, but all editions also have bits I would use if I were to make my ideal version of D&D. Older editions got certain things right that went off the rails in later editions (such as capping HD after a certain level, which in retrospect I think was the right call), but lack of options or poorly written rules so you could insert your own or squint your eyes till you saw what you wanted to see wasn't one of them.
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: Philotomy Jurament on January 03, 2021, 02:54:58 PM
I run original D&D (as well as 1e AD&D, in separate campaigns).

To me, the appeal of original D&D is that it provides a base foundation for the game without the decades of build up and later assumptions and clarifications. As DM, I can build on that foundation (or not build) as I like. I can emphasize the rules and approaches that I prefer. I can avoid things I don't like as much (especially if those things were made part of the game in later years/editions). In short, I use original D&D as a foundation for "my own" D&D.

That's not to say you couldn't do the same thing with a different edition of D&D: you certainly could. But for me, original D&D is the cleanest, firmest foundation or starting point. I don't have to "swim against the current" or "cut away" as much, and so on. Other DMs might find another edition to be a better starting point for the games they want to run.

Over the years, I've also found that playing and understanding original D&D has helped me understand (or make judgments about) rules and additions in later editions. For example, there are things in 1e AD&D that made a lot more sense to me after I played Chainmail and Swords & Spells and original D&D.

Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: Eirikrautha on January 03, 2021, 03:00:17 PM
In short, I use original D&D as a foundation for "my own" D&D.

LOL!  I think that's true for everyone who's ever played OD&D or AD&D (probably more AD&D).  The rules are so convoluted that I don't think anyone ever played RAW.  Even now, if I reread carefully, I can find something that totally contradicts what we did at the table back then.
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: Ratman_tf on January 03, 2021, 03:08:17 PM
Also, just how many OD&D players are on this website?

I've been playing D&D since the early 80's and I don't think I've met enough people who actually played pre-1st Ed AD&D to play Bridge with.

I didn't even know there was a "white box" version until much later. I started with B/X and Advanced.
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: Philotomy Jurament on January 03, 2021, 03:24:41 PM
I didn't even know there was a "white box" version until much later. I started with B/X and Advanced.

I started with the Holmes Basic Set and moved into 1e AD&D from there. However, I'd say that our early games were a chaotic mix of Holmes, 1e AD&D, original D&D little brown books (there was one guy who had these), and (once they came out) the B/X boxed sets. At the time, we didn't draw any lines between them. Later, that evolved into mostly just 1e AD&D. I played 2e when it came out, but found it to be less to my taste than earlier editions. Played 3e when it came out. I was initially enthusiastic, but after playing it for a while I grew disillusioned and abandoned it. Looked at 4e and gave it a brief shot. I thought it was well-designed, for what it is, but it wasn't anything like what I wanted from a set of D&D rules. Looked at 5e and gave it a brief shot. Again, not really what I wanted from a set of D&D rules; it didn't give me any reason to switch. I never bought the rules for 3.5, 4e, or 5e. I guess I well and truly got off the edition carousel when I abandoned 3e. I've been doing my own thing with my preferred editions ever since.
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: Shasarak on January 03, 2021, 03:52:52 PM
This is something I'm having trouble understanding about people with a deific fondness for games that had rules but then you ignored them or made up your own. I won't lie and say that I haven't just fudged rules, or just rolled with whatever was happening to move the game along. But that was made on a foundation of rules I generally liked and could use as written most of the time. Because that was a product I paid for. Functional rules.

When I hear some people reminisce about old school games, the fact that the rules were such vague and contradicting, unfinished, unrefined, clusterfuck is talked about with deep fondness. That somehow having bad rules, or non-existent rules made it better because if it was bad, then you can ignore them and make your own. Or just improv all the time.

So wouldn't the logical endpoint just be an improv night without any rules at all? If consistent rules and character-building gets in the way of the DM telling the story he wants, why have any rules at all? Why not just write up a short story with some people occasionally assisting with minor suggestions for individual characters?

Fundamentally I believe everybody can have the fun they want. Really this is more conceptual confusion for me. Personally, I believe it's just nostalgia.

I guess the problem lies somewhere between enough rules and too many rules.

I remember having a few pages of extra house rules back in the day to try and get the game running the way I wanted it too.
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: SHARK on January 03, 2021, 03:54:06 PM
Greetings!

I'm not sure how some folks in the hobby embrace this kind of hostility towards OD&D--or wargames from before. Wargames, whether boardgame types or the ones using miniatures, are great fun! As for OD&D, it was--and is--a simpler, streamlined game set of D&D because it was the original, and the first essential RPG. None of the additions, changes, and tomes of expansions from the last 40 years had been made yet. Have there been some improvements made by numerous designers and authors and DM's since then? Certainly! However, there are also problems and flaws through all of this "advancement". Many of which have led to unforeseen downsides or problems, to be sure. Going back to an older rule set--such as OD&D, or BX, or whatever, or even AD&D/OSRIC can be immensely fun, and exhilarating. There's much less "superstructure" to deal with, and the fewer rules, fewer technical doodads and so on to remember or keep track of. And yes, telling the DM to "wing it" or make "Rulings, not Rules!" is a big part of it, and also liberating--yes, it's a feature, not a flaw, but I suppose it requires a different attitude and mind set to see it that way. In more modern rule sets, there can often be a tendency for there to be rules for everything. In older rules, there are many aspects of modern games that were not necessarily touched upon, because the older games also embraced a different emphasis and set of priorities.

I'm enough of a Grognard to remember when there was no rules for adventuring in towns or cities or mostly so. The game was largely focused on conquering dungeons and exploring the wilderness. I remember well many of the early debates through letters and mail in Dragon Magazine--as well as White Dwarf later--going on and on about new rules for city adventures, new rules for social stuff, "deeper characters" and developing campaigns that weren't just about "Hack and Slash!" I think some folks have forgotten just how crazy and new playing a game about exploring dungeons and fighting Orcs and Dragons really was back then. It was very wild, and totally new. There were no boardgames about it, there weren't lots of other RPG's, no computer games, none of that. It was like a game that put you into the Lord of the Rings or Conan novels, or Knights of the Round Table.

I started as a wargamer as well, cutting my teeth on Avalon Hill's Russian Campaign, Squad Leader, Panzerblitz, and Rise and Decline of the Third Reich. Having rules for simulating the terrain, battlefield conditions, supply lines, reconnaissance, equipment, troop quality, morale, besides engaging in combat, was where it was at! All of those basic elements were essential, and the main priorities. Awesome times!

I'm also remined of how being an adult with professional and domestic responsibilities, and so on, has also impacted the game culture and people's attitudes towards rules. I know many people that also love the older games like AD&D because they are fatigued out about homework and rules for everything. They want something simpler, faster, sier to deal with--less homework and people burying their face in a book or on a device to "look something up" and more time laughing, and killing monsters and looting cool treasure. This consideration even cascades into what they want the DM to do--even if they aren't forced to do homework, they don't want the DM to need to consult this or read that, or look this up--they want the DM to make a quick judgment and get rolling the dice.

I love 5E. I know some people here hate 5E, but I appreciate its virtues, and a much streamlined and simplified approach. I also love AD&D, and OD&D too. All of these games and different rule sets have merits and flaws alike, with different ordered priorities and emphasis with each. Open your mind, and enjoy them. There really is no need to be hostile or mean-spirited.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: Shasarak on January 03, 2021, 03:57:09 PM
I love 5E. I know some people here hate 5E, but I appreciate its virtues, and a much streamlined and simplified approach. I also love AD&D, and OD&D too. All of these games and different rule sets have merits and flaws alike, with different ordered priorities and emphasis with each. Open your mind, and enjoy them. There really is no need to be hostile or mean-spirited.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

You dont understand SHARK, this is serious business.
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: Philotomy Jurament on January 03, 2021, 04:18:47 PM
I love 5E. I know some people here hate 5E, but I appreciate its virtues, and a much streamlined and simplified approach. I also love AD&D, and OD&D too. All of these games and different rule sets have merits and flaws alike, with different ordered priorities and emphasis with each. Open your mind, and enjoy them. There really is no need to be hostile or mean-spirited.

I agree with the sentiment. While I have my preferred editions, and might reject this or that edition for various reasons, I don't *hate* any of the editions and certainly see no need to berate people for choosing to play them, or argue that my preferences are superior (objectively or subjectively). They're just my preferences. The way I see it, we should play what we enjoy.
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: Arkansan on January 03, 2021, 05:10:16 PM
This whole thread is essentially pointless. The correct answer here is everyone play what they like for whatever reasons they like and as long as they're having fun then everyone is winning.
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: Two Crows on January 03, 2021, 05:21:43 PM
In short, I use original D&D as a foundation for "my own" D&D.

LOL!  I think that's true for everyone who's ever played OD&D or AD&D (probably more AD&D).  The rules are so convoluted that I don't think anyone ever played RAW.  Even now, if I reread carefully, I can find something that totally contradicts what we did at the table back then.

True!

No two tables were the same.
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: VisionStorm on January 03, 2021, 06:19:03 PM
Greetings!

I'm not sure how some folks in the hobby embrace this kind of hostility towards OD&D

It isn't so much hostility towards OD&D, but rather hostility (or perplexion) towards the way that some people overpraise it (often while being hostile towards other editions, I would add). And how contradictory a lot of it seems, given how vague or unfinished a lot of earlier rulesets seemed, or how sometimes even the absence of rules is seen as a feature, cuz then you can make up your own. It's like trying to push a square peg into a round hole, then insisting that this round hole is the best hole there is because it forces me to work out creative ways to push a square peg through it.

This whole thread is essentially pointless. The correct answer here is everyone play what they like for whatever reasons they like and as long as they're having fun then everyone is winning.

Nah, I think this forum could use more threads being critical of OD&D, same way there's been plenty of threads crapping all over 5e. This place is too much of an OSR echo chamber.

Obviously everyone can play what they like, but doesn't really address the underlying issue or why some people feel so highly about OD&D, and constantly make us hear (or read?) about it. And "everyone play what they like" is not quite the impression I get when people hold OD&D as the answer to every ill and blame 3e for everything that went wrong with D&D.
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: Ratman_tf on January 03, 2021, 06:27:14 PM
This whole thread is essentially pointless. The correct answer here is everyone play what they like for whatever reasons they like and as long as they're having fun then everyone is winning.

By that line of thought, every discussion is pointless, and we should shut down all the message boards.
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: Pat on January 03, 2021, 07:13:27 PM
This whole thread is essentially pointless. The correct answer here is everyone play what they like for whatever reasons they like and as long as they're having fun then everyone is winning.

By that line of thought, every discussion is pointless, and we should shut down all the message boards.
And the courts. Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law!
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: SHARK on January 03, 2021, 07:51:34 PM
Greetings!

I'm not sure how some folks in the hobby embrace this kind of hostility towards OD&D

It isn't so much hostility towards OD&D, but rather hostility (or perplexion) towards the way that some people overpraise it (often while being hostile towards other editions, I would add). And how contradictory a lot of it seems, given how vague or unfinished a lot of earlier rulesets seemed, or how sometimes even the absence of rules is seen as a feature, cuz then you can make up your own. It's like trying to push a square peg into a round hole, then insisting that this round hole is the best hole there is because it forces me to work out creative ways to push a square peg through it.

This whole thread is essentially pointless. The correct answer here is everyone play what they like for whatever reasons they like and as long as they're having fun then everyone is winning.

Nah, I think this forum could use more threads being critical of OD&D, same way there's been plenty of threads crapping all over 5e. This place is too much of an OSR echo chamber.

Obviously everyone can play what they like, but doesn't really address the underlying issue or why some people feel so highly about OD&D, and constantly make us hear (or read?) about it. And "everyone play what they like" is not quite the impression I get when people hold OD&D as the answer to every ill and blame 3e for everything that went wrong with D&D.

Greetings!

Good points, Visionstorm! Indeed, OD&D and AD&D both are not perfect, and there are a good number of critiques you could make of them. As you pointed out, having vague or few articulated rules for several topics and issues easily come to mind. And I hear you on the other Grognard's critiques of everything bad with D&D started at 3E. *Laughing* I also loved 3E, too! I have an enormous library of books and modules that I collected for it, running 3E for *years* 3E eventually developed the same problems that Rolemaster possessed--especially the huge time sink in making characters and NPC's, a pack of books that you as the DM had to carry that would cripple a mule, and a bazillion skills and special powers and abilities. Characters required--and developed--multiple pages for all of their skills, special powers, spells, all of their special modifiers against X or Z, and more, I'm sure. As much as a fan of 3E I was, geesus it became a laborious thing to run. *Laughing* Our conversations with you and I though don't have the prerequisite napalm that some of our fellow members like though.

I like 5E as well, because it is simple and easy to run and do characters, easy for the players, and yet also has some of the newer "advances" of modern games--so avoiding some of those same critiques and flaws of the older games. 5E or AD&D for me, either one is excellent for myself.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: Jaeger on January 03, 2021, 07:52:28 PM
...But ultimately you didn't answer my question. Which was:

Why do you prefer BAD rules, on the principle that you can ignore them? With all the touting of how 'Rulings not rules' OD&D was, one would think it would be a single page with 'I dunno roll a 20' on it. But it's not. Its pages and pages of contradictory (mostly just unfinished) resolution mechanics, with specific examples and things to do in multiple scenarious.
...

I certainly don't. Bad game design is bad game design.

Give me a retro clone that cleans things up any day over the hot mess that was early D&D.

Of course in D&D's defense - it was the first of it's kind, and it took a few editions to sort things out.

By todays standards, OD&D's design was crap. You try to release OD&D today without "D&D" on the cover and everyone would go: "What the fuck is this shit...!?"

So while it can certainly be said the system was a bit pants, as a game, it was lightning in a bottle..



...LOL!  I think that's true for everyone who's ever played OD&D or AD&D (probably more AD&D)The rules are so convoluted that I don't think anyone ever played RAW.  Even now, if I reread carefully, I can find something that totally contradicts what we did at the table back then.

AD&D1e was a hot mess. And it was lucky that B/X was around.

That said, the title "Advanced D&D" was marketing brilliance. 
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: Vidgrip on January 03, 2021, 08:35:13 PM
I played OD&D in the 70's.  I would never use those little brown books now that cleaner versions, like Swords & Wizardry, are available that consolidate and explain everything. The game is essentially the same, of course. If you have tried it and don't like it, play something else. If you have already heard explanations of why other people like it, and don't agree, then there isn't much point in asking for more explanations.

No matter what edition I'm running, I discard or change rules I don't like. Newer editions just require me to change or discard a lot more than OD&D ever did.

Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: Opaopajr on January 03, 2021, 08:56:44 PM
Why have different tools and materials when you're gonna start with the same apprentice projects?  ;)
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: Arkansan on January 03, 2021, 09:06:51 PM
Greetings!

I'm not sure how some folks in the hobby embrace this kind of hostility towards OD&D

It isn't so much hostility towards OD&D, but rather hostility (or perplexion) towards the way that some people overpraise it (often while being hostile towards other editions, I would add). And how contradictory a lot of it seems, given how vague or unfinished a lot of earlier rulesets seemed, or how sometimes even the absence of rules is seen as a feature, cuz then you can make up your own. It's like trying to push a square peg into a round hole, then insisting that this round hole is the best hole there is because it forces me to work out creative ways to push a square peg through it.

This whole thread is essentially pointless. The correct answer here is everyone play what they like for whatever reasons they like and as long as they're having fun then everyone is winning.

Nah, I think this forum could use more threads being critical of OD&D, same way there's been plenty of threads crapping all over 5e. This place is too much of an OSR echo chamber.

Obviously everyone can play what they like, but doesn't really address the underlying issue or why some people feel so highly about OD&D, and constantly make us hear (or read?) about it. And "everyone play what they like" is not quite the impression I get when people hold OD&D as the answer to every ill and blame 3e for everything that went wrong with D&D.

No one makes you hear or read about anything, you choose to stay. I mean this thread is basically you demanding everyone argue against your strawman of the OSR. Go be somewhere else if you aren't happy with the flow of the board or the games that are popular here.
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: Philotomy Jurament on January 03, 2021, 11:43:10 PM
..."everyone play what they like" is not quite the impression I get when people hold OD&D as the answer to every ill and blame 3e for everything that went wrong with D&D.

I'm happy to discuss what I like and don't like about various editions. However, in my experience, even polite discussion of "dislikes" is often characterized as "hate," especially by people who like whatever edition or rule or whatever. Sometimes even saying "I don't like such-and-such" is enough to be called a "hater." And it's the internet, so there's no guarantee that all participants are going to be polite. And "fandom" type communities tend to include a least some people who have their personal identity heavily tied up in their fandom; such individuals can take dislike or disagreement (about the thing they love) personally.

It goes the opposite way, too: there are always going to be some who like something so much that they aggressively promote it, including bashing alternatives.

My approach to discussions about this kind of thing, especially in "fandom" type forums, is to have a thick skin, be polite, and present my opinions as opinions. Being whiny or overly sensitive tends to get you dismissed. Being rude or stating your opinion as if it were some objective truth gets you categorized as an ass, and dismissed. Polite + thick skin + opinion-not-TRUTH is a recipe that usually works, if one sticks to it. (And I'm not claiming that I infallibly do. But I'm trying...)
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: Bren on January 04, 2021, 12:17:45 AM
Obviously everyone can play what they like, but doesn't really address the underlying issue or why some people feel so highly about OD&D, and constantly make us hear (or read?) about it. And "everyone play what they like" is not quite the impression I get when people hold OD&D as the answer to every ill and blame 3e for everything that went wrong with D&D.
I think it started with the Greyhawk supplement...or maybe those articles in the Strategic Review.


I didn't even know there was a "white box" version until much later. I started with B/X and Advanced.
The White Box was the packaging that came after the original Brown Box. I think the white boxes came about when they sold out their original print run of D&D.
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: Mishihari on January 04, 2021, 12:36:11 AM
This is something I'm having trouble understanding about people with a deific fondness for games that had rules but then you ignored them or made up your own. I won't lie and say that I haven't just fudged rules, or just rolled with whatever was happening to move the game along. But that was made on a foundation of rules I generally liked and could use as written most of the time. Because that was a product I paid for. Functional rules.

When I hear some people reminisce about old school games, the fact that the rules were such vague and contradicting, unfinished, unrefined, clusterfuck is talked about with deep fondness. That somehow having bad rules, or non-existent rules made it better because if it was bad, then you can ignore them and make your own. Or just improv all the time.

So wouldn't the logical endpoint just be an improv night without any rules at all? If consistent rules and character-building gets in the way of the DM telling the story he wants, why have any rules at all? Why not just write up a short story with some people occasionally assisting with minor suggestions for individual characters?

Fundamentally I believe everybody can have the fun they want. Really this is more conceptual confusion for me. Personally, I believe it's just nostalgia.

Lots of people essentially play RPGs without rules at all.  They call it "cooperative storytelling" or "storygames."  I'm actually in the middle of one right now run by my 11 year old son, the latest of a long series.  I'm not into them like I'm into RPGs but I've been told by those who claim to know that they're more popular than actual RPGs.

I see it as just another part of the continuum.  There's rules heavy, rules light, and rules gone, with stuff all along the line.  I would say the fact that lots of people play and enjoy rules-very-light and rules-gone game shows that it's a valid, useful approach.
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: Mishihari on January 04, 2021, 12:44:58 AM
I didn't even know there was a "white box" version until much later. I started with B/X and Advanced.

I started with the Holmes Basic Set and moved into 1e AD&D from there. However, I'd say that our early games were a chaotic mix of Holmes, 1e AD&D, original D&D little brown books (there was one guy who had these), and (once they came out) the B/X boxed sets. At the time, we didn't draw any lines between them. Later, that evolved into mostly just 1e AD&D. I played 2e when it came out, but found it to be less to my taste than earlier editions. Played 3e when it came out. I was initially enthusiastic, but after playing it for a while I grew disillusioned and abandoned it. Looked at 4e and gave it a brief shot. I thought it was well-designed, for what it is, but it wasn't anything like what I wanted from a set of D&D rules. Looked at 5e and gave it a brief shot. Again, not really what I wanted from a set of D&D rules; it didn't give me any reason to switch. I never bought the rules for 3.5, 4e, or 5e. I guess I well and truly got off the edition carousel when I abandoned 3e. I've been doing my own thing with my preferred editions ever since.


Wow.  This is precisely my own experience.  Now I'm wondering if you're someone from my original group in eastern Iowa, circa 1980.
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: Philotomy Jurament on January 04, 2021, 12:54:53 AM
Wow.  This is precisely my own experience.  Now I'm wondering if you're someone from my original group in eastern Iowa, circa 1980.

That would be pretty cool, but sadly, no. In the 70s I lived in Wichita, KS, and then moved to St. Peters, MO in 1980.
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: consolcwby on January 04, 2021, 01:54:15 AM
This is something I'm having trouble understanding about people with a deific fondness for games that had rules but then you ignored them or made up your own. -snip-

When I hear some people reminisce about old school games, the fact that the rules were such vague and contradicting, unfinished, unrefined, clusterfuck is talked about with deep fondness. --snipp--

So wouldn't the logical endpoint just be an improv night without any rules at all? ---snippp---

Really this is more conceptual confusion for me. ----snipppp----
For myself, personally, every point you have just made is way off the mark.I have always seen RPGs which were published before 1984 to be more like structured templates for rules than anything else. I never ignored rules nor have I ever found them to be contradicting in much of the sense other people claim, mostly due to an understanding of where the rules come from which are a variety of sources. I mostly blame DRAGON Magazine and Gygax's notion of including TOO much additional information in 1e AD&D DMG, for instance, when all that is really needed for rules is contained in the PHB. But this is nuance and your post doesn't seem constucted to allow for nuance. But. I'm going to ask you something:
Ever hear of the 1e PC class Manhunter? Or how about the 1e race called Feyre?
No? Never heard of them?
That's because their mine. I put alot of work into these. Never published but played for over 28 years.
And they work. And work well.
That's why I like 1e over newer faire.
It's only a structued template for me. Having no rules means no structure. I don't particularly like that.
I hope my answer helps. But I doubt it.
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: SHARK on January 04, 2021, 05:10:29 AM
I love 5E. I know some people here hate 5E, but I appreciate its virtues, and a much streamlined and simplified approach. I also love AD&D, and OD&D too. All of these games and different rule sets have merits and flaws alike, with different ordered priorities and emphasis with each. Open your mind, and enjoy them. There really is no need to be hostile or mean-spirited.

I agree with the sentiment. While I have my preferred editions, and might reject this or that edition for various reasons, I don't *hate* any of the editions and certainly see no need to berate people for choosing to play them, or argue that my preferences are superior (objectively or subjectively). They're just my preferences. The way I see it, we should play what we enjoy.

Greetings!

Hey there, Philotomy! Good to hear that I'm not nuts for thinking this. I agree as well. Playing AD&D for *years*--and previously, some OD&D, it is difficult for me to hate on the system. It worked, and worked quite well. So many games, crazy adventures, and fun times! As much as a fan of 5E as I am, and appreciate so many aspects of the 5E system, through the evolution of 3E to now, I suppose it can take some time being immersed in the "New systems" so as to come face to face with and realize what has been lost, and left behind. I think it is during such a time of experience, that one can often reflect back on the older system, and view it with a fresh approach and a renewed sense of appreciation for the deeper, robust mechanics, the simplified systems, and just as importantly perhaps, is the *why* the systems were made the way they were, what was the goal, and what errors, problems or headaches were sought to avoid, and why. There is a lot of the modern problems and *FAT* that is avoided with the older systems, though I admit some of these problems are only fully realized after you have been immersed in the new system long enough for these dynamics to come to the surface. It's then that I often have these enjoyable moments where I reflect on, wow, Gygax and company were such geniuses. They foresaw precisely the problem I'm dealing with now--which is why they established this dynamic system X over here. ;D

Then, there's those instances where, like with Armour Class ascending, it's like, yeah, this is much better than the older system, clearer, and more intuitive. Some of the older system dynamics were unnecessarily vague and sometimes needlessly complicated. Which then recalls the memory of some critiques of Gygax and others needing a better editor, or just an advisor that had an ability to write in a more succinct and clear manner in explaining a process or rule. I also generally enjoy having a more detailed skill system, but even in that, there are dangers that can easily grow and smack you hard. I've come to the conclusion that it is a tricky balance, and not easily achieved, between having just the right amount of accurate, robust and diverse skills, so as to provide simulation, degrees of competency, and distinction gradients, without then ballooning into a bazillion skills and an absolute mess.

I sometimes wonder, would some of these people blast their friend or someone nice they met at a Con or at the local game store, if they said 3E or 5E is ok, but they really *love* AD&D, or the opposite? Would they blast them with, "WTF? How can you be such a Grognard moron?" Or you know the drill in the opposite manner, such with the litany of hate against 3E or 5E. I mean, can you really imagine talking to a friend and fellow gamer like that, for just having a different set of preferences? It also reminds me of the different dynamics in preferences of game play for most of the guys I game with--and compared to the women. Their game preferences are in huge conflict, usually manageable of course, but it definitely requires that I devote extra attention and regard for the distinctly different set of preferences. The guys want fighting, gold, death and drama. The girls want romance, making friends, emotional drama, complex relationships, shopping, and intrigue. Neither of them are *wrong*--they just have different priorities and preferences for the game play style and the way they develop their characters. Imagine telling your wife or girlfriend, "What? You want to play your character what way? And do what? That's retarded."

Good stuff though, Philotomy!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: VisionStorm on January 04, 2021, 08:02:51 AM
Greetings!

I'm not sure how some folks in the hobby embrace this kind of hostility towards OD&D

It isn't so much hostility towards OD&D, but rather hostility (or perplexion) towards the way that some people overpraise it (often while being hostile towards other editions, I would add). And how contradictory a lot of it seems, given how vague or unfinished a lot of earlier rulesets seemed, or how sometimes even the absence of rules is seen as a feature, cuz then you can make up your own. It's like trying to push a square peg into a round hole, then insisting that this round hole is the best hole there is because it forces me to work out creative ways to push a square peg through it.

This whole thread is essentially pointless. The correct answer here is everyone play what they like for whatever reasons they like and as long as they're having fun then everyone is winning.

Nah, I think this forum could use more threads being critical of OD&D, same way there's been plenty of threads crapping all over 5e. This place is too much of an OSR echo chamber.

Obviously everyone can play what they like, but doesn't really address the underlying issue or why some people feel so highly about OD&D, and constantly make us hear (or read?) about it. And "everyone play what they like" is not quite the impression I get when people hold OD&D as the answer to every ill and blame 3e for everything that went wrong with D&D.

Greetings!

Good points, Visionstorm! Indeed, OD&D and AD&D both are not perfect, and there are a good number of critiques you could make of them. As you pointed out, having vague or few articulated rules for several topics and issues easily come to mind. And I hear you on the other Grognard's critiques of everything bad with D&D started at 3E. *Laughing* I also loved 3E, too! I have an enormous library of books and modules that I collected for it, running 3E for *years* 3E eventually developed the same problems that Rolemaster possessed--especially the huge time sink in making characters and NPC's, a pack of books that you as the DM had to carry that would cripple a mule, and a bazillion skills and special powers and abilities. Characters required--and developed--multiple pages for all of their skills, special powers, spells, all of their special modifiers against X or Z, and more, I'm sure. As much as a fan of 3E I was, geesus it became a laborious thing to run. *Laughing* Our conversations with you and I though don't have the prerequisite napalm that some of our fellow members like though.

I like 5E as well, because it is simple and easy to run and do characters, easy for the players, and yet also has some of the newer "advances" of modern games--so avoiding some of those same critiques and flaws of the older games. 5E or AD&D for me, either one is excellent for myself.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Yeah, "too much" is certainly one of the key areas where 3e failed. Too many books, too many skills, too many feats, way too many classes, too much time creating characters, too much paper work. I love a lot of the core components added in 3e--unified d20 mechanics, attack bonus progression broken into Good/Average/Poor (the way multiple attacks worked complicated things a bit, though), breaking down saving throws into three saves (the bonuses themselves were kinda low, but Fortitude, Reflex & Will seem an ideal setup) the addition of feats and skills (though, their implementation itself kinda sucked, but loved the basic idea of having them). But once you get to the implementation of certain things (skills and feats) and the sheer amount of "stuff", then having to track a lot of that "stuff" for monsters as well, the system starts to break or slow down.

Greetings!

I'm not sure how some folks in the hobby embrace this kind of hostility towards OD&D

It isn't so much hostility towards OD&D, but rather hostility (or perplexion) towards the way that some people overpraise it (often while being hostile towards other editions, I would add). And how contradictory a lot of it seems, given how vague or unfinished a lot of earlier rulesets seemed, or how sometimes even the absence of rules is seen as a feature, cuz then you can make up your own. It's like trying to push a square peg into a round hole, then insisting that this round hole is the best hole there is because it forces me to work out creative ways to push a square peg through it.

This whole thread is essentially pointless. The correct answer here is everyone play what they like for whatever reasons they like and as long as they're having fun then everyone is winning.

Nah, I think this forum could use more threads being critical of OD&D, same way there's been plenty of threads crapping all over 5e. This place is too much of an OSR echo chamber.

Obviously everyone can play what they like, but doesn't really address the underlying issue or why some people feel so highly about OD&D, and constantly make us hear (or read?) about it. And "everyone play what they like" is not quite the impression I get when people hold OD&D as the answer to every ill and blame 3e for everything that went wrong with D&D.

No one makes you hear or read about anything, you choose to stay. I mean this thread is basically you demanding everyone argue against your strawman of the OSR. Go be somewhere else if you aren't happy with the flow of the board or the games that are popular here.

I made no demands at any point, or even start the thread. But I'm sure I'm the one arguing strawmen, or failing to make a point.  :P

..."everyone play what they like" is not quite the impression I get when people hold OD&D as the answer to every ill and blame 3e for everything that went wrong with D&D.

I'm happy to discuss what I like and don't like about various editions. However, in my experience, even polite discussion of "dislikes" is often characterized as "hate," especially by people who like whatever edition or rule or whatever. Sometimes even saying "I don't like such-and-such" is enough to be called a "hater." And it's the internet, so there's no guarantee that all participants are going to be polite. And "fandom" type communities tend to include a least some people who have their personal identity heavily tied up in their fandom; such individuals can take dislike or disagreement (about the thing they love) personally.

It goes the opposite way, too: there are always going to be some who like something so much that they aggressively promote it, including bashing alternatives.

My approach to discussions about this kind of thing, especially in "fandom" type forums, is to have a thick skin, be polite, and present my opinions as opinions. Being whiny or overly sensitive tends to get you dismissed. Being rude or stating your opinion as if it were some objective truth gets you categorized as an ass, and dismissed. Polite + thick skin + opinion-not-TRUTH is a recipe that usually works, if one sticks to it. (And I'm not claiming that I infallibly do. But I'm trying...)

The internet is certainly a factor, and people often reply to fragments or by reading things into what you said, rather than reply to what you actually said or were trying to say (which would require people stepping back and asking for clarification, rather than attack poorly worded or understood arguments just to score online points). Which tends to create a disconnect and lead people to speak pass each other.
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: Steven Mitchell on January 04, 2021, 08:20:25 AM
Returning to the original question of "Why?" and with some trepidation to the food analogies:  Recently I wanted to cook a meal that was going to feature stir-fry chicken with celery in it.  I didn't have a recipe in mind.  The internet produced several that looked interesting but not exactly what I had in mind.  However, by combining some of the ideas in those recipes with a few of my own (carrots, ginger, different pasta to serve with it), I got something that my family appreciated.  Enough that we recorded the new recipe.  I've also made up a stir-fry recipe without such references.  It is hardly difficult for someone with a little experience, though there is always a little element of risk and excitement as to whether or not it will work.

For me, the more likely starting point with games is BEMCI/RC instead of OD&D.  Yep, there is more to remove with RC before I start adding, but I've spent a lot of time removing those things, so not as much effort for me as it might be for other people.  I'm used to it now.  The point of having a rule set that you don't use exactly is to stimulate your mind and provide a point of reference from which to start.  You can learn from the bad and mistakes as much as you can from what works, sometimes more.  For me, the recipe analogy holds up well in my experience with adapting RC.  I've done all of those analogous things with the rules at one point or another.

As for why a mistake or flaw in a game would be seen as a positive thing, it is because it can produce a character-building experience (in the older sense of the phrase):  It would have been easier if BEMCI has been more to my taste out of the box and if it had avoided some of its flaws.  It was better for my development as a GM that I had to struggle with it a little to get what I wanted and thus had a large incentive to jump on the DIY track.  It's not as if the idea is confined to early games, either.  I learned something about being a better GM and rules designer from running a short Burning Wheel campaign.  It was worth it for that alone, even though it was a short campaign because the game didn't suit our group.  By definition, much of that kind of positive/negative trade in games is personal to each GM, because the flaw that is a character-building experience for me is a useless impediment to another and a functional or even good rule to others.

What newer GMs are always in danger of is accepting mediocrity.  It's easier to get started (which is good).  It's easier to find a game that (mostly) works for you as is (which is good).  It's easier to fall into that and not stretch or learn DIY or go back and look at thing as they are and in context to try to get the benefits out of them.  Do that, and you might not do any cooking except exactly following recipes all your life.
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: Abraxus on January 04, 2021, 08:31:17 AM
I'm pretty much one can play whatever edition they want as well.

It just seems that every time like the other thread for optimization comes up. Those who like older editions always seem to be like "nah never would have happened before pre-3E". The only reason given is that it's their favored edition of D&D. Even when one points out that no matter the edition optimization was always an issue one gets told that either we can't read or we simply don't get older editions. It's kind of hard to find common ground when not only do posters expect an echo chamber they call you an idiot.
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: Eric Diaz on January 04, 2021, 11:11:50 AM
Rules are tools.

It is useful to have some tools handy when you need them, but it is not often useful to carry 100 pounds of tools if you're traveling on foot.

Some jobs don't require tools at all... but if you never use a tool, it might be better to put it away.

Maybe Swiss army knives are the best analogy here.

You don't get to pick and choose exactly which tools you will carry (unless you write your own RPOG... which I have), so you just choose the model that works best for you. Not necessarily the heaviest or lightest one.

(I'm not OD&Ds or AD&Ds greatest fan. For me, Moldvay's Basic is the best for its size.... and the Rule's Cyclopedia is also the best for its size. 5e is not bad for its size, but its size might be too much for me).
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: Thondor on January 04, 2021, 11:57:23 AM

Then, there's those instances where, like with Armour Class ascending, it's like, yeah, this is much better than the older system, clearer, and more intuitive. Some of the older system dynamics were unnecessarily vague and sometimes needlessly complicated. Which then recalls the memory of some critiques of Gygax and others needing a better editor, or just an advisor that had an ability to write in a more succinct and clear manner in explaining a process or rule.

Point #1
I had a very long thread on ENworld once about "why THAC0 rocks." I really do like it. While I can agree that ascending AC is more intuitive, there are some fundamental things that it does that ascending doesn't:
Bounded design -- AC 0 is around the natural maximum, while -10 is the magically enhanced maximum.
You can do the math once against a single foe (it's more intuitive to do so).
Designed so that GM can decide how "player facing" the mechanic is. (in 1e the attack tables were in the DMG!)

Frankly I find it easier with large groups of players and monsters, perhaps that is just because it encourages me to have all the info I need at hand, so I am not waiting for a player to tell me if the monster hit them, I already know.

My real point here is, assumptions that something is "obviously better" may just be overlooking somethings positive qualities.

Point#2
Yes, I think it is fairly evident that better editing and the two co-designers being somewhat at odds had a negative impact on things. This is one of the reasons I find Champions of ZED such an interesting read. It opens with mapping the campaign world for one thing, which makes a lot of sense for how you start to actually plan and play the game.

Yeah, "too much" is certainly one of the key areas where 3e failed. Too many books, too many skills, too many feats, way too many classes, too much time creating characters, too much paper work. I love a lot of the core components added in 3e--unified d20 mechanics, attack bonus progression broken into Good/Average/Poor (the way multiple attacks worked complicated things a bit, though), breaking down saving throws into three saves (the bonuses themselves were kinda low, but Fortitude, Reflex & Will seem an ideal setup).

emphasis added
I don't know, I think the "unified mechanic" is an odd sacred cow. It can bind people to less ideal methods of resolving something.
As a poor example: If as GM I think -- there should be a 50% chance of something occurring, it does not matter what die I use to roll. But unified d20 design could keep someone from realizing that.
If a game uses a d20 for everything except for morale checks which use 2d6 (because the distribution curve of results are desirable), it doesn't automatically make that inferior design.

Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: Chris24601 on January 04, 2021, 01:08:32 PM
If a game uses a d20 for everything except for morale checks which use 2d6 (because the distribution curve of results are desirable), it doesn't automatically make that inferior design.
No, but it might be worth asking if perhaps using 2d20 or 3d20 (use middle) wouldn't be something that might be more intuitive to the rest of the system; or alternately if 2d6 would be better for those other checks too. If EVERYTHING was 1d20, I'd also be looking at how damage worked because while using different polyhedrals for damage is a very D&D thing, its a bit less intuitive than say, True20 where damage checks are also 1d20-based.

Its not a universally "best" advantage, but one thing unified mechanics do accomplish is make it very intuitive to pick up because everything is resolved basically the same way with some modifiers here and there. It also makes it easier to improvise with from the DM side.

1d20+ attribute/skill/whatever vs. a target number (10 average, 15 hard, 20 very hard, 25 nearly impossible) is super easy for a new DM to just make something up with. Decide what modifier the PC should use (so you don't even need to know how capable the PC is when you decide) and then pick a number based on how difficult it would be for an average person.

There's no right answer though... everyone's standards are different. Personally, I vastly prefer the Silhouette System's (Jovian Chronicles, Heavy Gear) damage multipliers (multiply margin-of-success by damage multiplier for damage dealt) over D&D's damage that is independent of quality of hit (other than crits)... but I also acknowledge that its a LOT more mathematically involved (roll and subtract defense roll, multiply by weapon multiplier, compare to armor value, roll effect on table based on result) while WotC-era D&D is entirely additive/subtractive/comparative math (add dice result and modifier then compare to target number; roll damage and subtract from remaining hit points).
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: Steven Mitchell on January 04, 2021, 01:37:52 PM
For the unified mechanic thing, I'm in the "simple as possible but no simpler" camp.  Specifically, if there are 20 elements in the game and you can easily and clearly express them with 3 mechanics, then I'm for having 3 mechanics instead of 5 or 10 or 20.  I'm not for, however, after easily fitting 18 of the elements into 3 mechanics, forcing the remaining 2 elements into one of the three when the two elements happen to be the exceptions that really could use their own distinct mechanics. That applies to the math, the handling time, the frequency of the thing, and the feel of the mechanic relative to the element it is controlling.

That is, unified mechanics are good as long as they are a tool used correctly.  They are counter-productive when they become a goal in and of themselves.
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: VisionStorm on January 04, 2021, 01:45:32 PM

Then, there's those instances where, like with Armour Class ascending, it's like, yeah, this is much better than the older system, clearer, and more intuitive. Some of the older system dynamics were unnecessarily vague and sometimes needlessly complicated. Which then recalls the memory of some critiques of Gygax and others needing a better editor, or just an advisor that had an ability to write in a more succinct and clear manner in explaining a process or rule.

Point #1
I had a very long thread on ENworld once about "why THAC0 rocks." I really do like it. While I can agree that ascending AC is more intuitive, there are some fundamental things that it does that ascending doesn't:
Bounded design -- AC 0 is around the natural maximum, while -10 is the magically enhanced maximum.
You can do the math once against a single foe (it's more intuitive to do so).
Designed so that GM can decide how "player facing" the mechanic is. (in 1e the attack tables were in the DMG!)

Frankly I find it easier with large groups of players and monsters, perhaps that is just because it encourages me to have all the info I need at hand, so I am not waiting for a player to tell me if the monster hit them, I already know.

My real point here is, assumptions that something is "obviously better" may just be overlooking somethings positive qualities.

Bounded AC is not an inherent or unique feature of THAC0, and you could always add maximum values to modifiers and difficulty numbers in a unified mechanic (which would actually be my preference, and how I handle it in my own homebrewed systems). Maximum AC also doesn't necessarily do much on its own unless you also limit how high modifiers can get, or how low THAC0 can be. A level 20+ (he eventually got to level 25 or so) fighter in one of my old 2e campaigns could routinely hit -10 AC, with STR 18 (00),  weapon master (from Player's Options) and Scimitars of Speed +5. This has always been an issue with D&D, which is part of the reason they used Bounded Accuracy in 5e.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean with the rest of your points, but I have no problem or need for math to determine what number a character needs to hit ascending AC. And players don't need to know their target's AC. I can always keep it secret and if the AC value is 25, then anytime someone rolls a total of 25 they hit. It's really simple.

Yeah, "too much" is certainly one of the key areas where 3e failed. Too many books, too many skills, too many feats, way too many classes, too much time creating characters, too much paper work. I love a lot of the core components added in 3e--unified d20 mechanics, attack bonus progression broken into Good/Average/Poor (the way multiple attacks worked complicated things a bit, though), breaking down saving throws into three saves (the bonuses themselves were kinda low, but Fortitude, Reflex & Will seem an ideal setup).

emphasis added
I don't know, I think the "unified mechanic" is an odd sacred cow. It can bind people to less ideal methods of resolving something.
As a poor example: If as GM I think -- there should be a 50% chance of something occurring, it does not matter what die I use to roll. But unified d20 design could keep someone from realizing that.
If a game uses a d20 for everything except for morale checks which use 2d6 (because the distribution curve of results are desirable), it doesn't automatically make that inferior design.

I'm not sure how the existence of unified mechanics for task resolution would affect the changes of random events happening in the world. If you wanna give it 50% chance that wandering enemies stumble onto the group if PCs are taking too long you can always flip a coin. Unified mechanics won't stop you.
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: Two Crows on January 04, 2021, 04:27:31 PM
Okay, thread finally makes sense:

It isn't about OD&D at all ... it's about fans of latter editions resenting the OSR movement and it's popularity!  That clears up so much confusion, lol.


Because of this thread, I pulled out some of the stuff I keep in storage and consulted some history's of the hobby, trying to track down what on earth was going on here, and what the rules were like pre-1977.

Just for future reference, and for clarity:

OD&D was actually published as a wargame (it's even in the title), and specified it did not have rules so much as it had guidelines.  Three core books VERY QUICKLY followed by three more optional books.  OD&D saw a total of 7 "rule" books, and included Psionics, Hit locations, and more.

FWIW, I have never seen a single OSR game attempt to mimic OD&D as it was printed.

Moldvay is the first real revision of the rules, and basically the first (incomplete) version of Mentzer (BECMI).  AD&D was an attempt to turn the "guideline" style play into a more fixed rule set (I CAN'T BELIEVE I FORGOT ABOUT TOURNAMENTS AND SCORING!).

D&D did not have two designers; it had dozens-to-hundreds of designers.  New and alternate material was available in various magazines, club letters, 3rd party companies, and more.

The original game was not intended to be a single game, it was a "How-To" reference point for an entire hobby.  Every fantasy RPG and setting to come out of the 1970's was a D&D homebrew with it's own optional rules (RuneQuest, Palladium, Thieves World, Empire of the Petal Throne, and many more).

One of the largest complaints when Gygax decided to codify more specific rules (i.e. create AD&D) was that the hobby would Balkanize and the ability to pick up your character and sit down at any game while attending any convention would be lost.


To summarize; when opposing the OSR, you are really looking at three core ideas popularly referred to as B/X, BECMI, and AD&D.  The first two are really more or less the exact same thing, the second just adds more options.

OD&D is the wrong target.


Note: It's amusing that 3e was in many ways closer to OD&D any of the other books being mentioned here, particularly with the Living games.
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: EOTB on January 05, 2021, 02:04:53 AM
Early D&D didn’t worship design for design’s sake.  I consider this a plus. 

It’s very clear from the material they were putting out guidance/rules, but the emphasis is on the activity instead of the rules.  “We’ll figure it out while on the field, If we need to” is the overriding principle.

“Get there the firstest with the mostest” - the rules put out cover whatever came up in play to that point, instead of trying to imagine all the things that could be played and having a rule ready.  I also find that a strength.  The emphasis is on action rather than contemplation.  If you understand the rule that works in common situations, you can extrapolate for corner cases.  This is a key point of mastery in any activity - the ability to work off-road.  Much more efficient than building all the roads that could maybe be needed, for the satisfaction of a complete map.

Early D&D also wasn’t all that left-brained.  It dips into left-brained thinking when it needs to but not as a foundation or first-order.  Those who are first-order left-brained go to the bolts and get confused as to why the material isn’t their style of turtle all the way down.  It’s almost inconceivable to someone using logic as a first principle

We also don’t want rule sets we won’t play to drain our pool of possible players.  RPGs are a time-intensive group activity; they are zero-sum games.  You can read a lot of them but only play very few.  While dabbling can increase the number of systems used, if someone wants to play a lot of their favorite game, persuasive promotion of another game is going to get an emotional response (left-thinkers will justify this with arguments reframed-to-logic).  An example of this sometimes bubbles out as “I want to play game X but everyone wants to play D&D and I’m sick of it”

I personally like OD&D and AD&D 1E because, while the character was the innovation, it’s still almost an afterthought.  It was necessary to play, so it was created.  But it was still very much there a concession to necessity in order to play rather than as a mini game unto itself; there’s not really enough there to be satisfying if unused at the table.  Which is how I want my game - incomplete/poorly suited for solo character-centric daydreaming.  Little magic outside of groups discovering a world not on their sheet around a dining table while sharing a pizza.
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: Slipshot762 on January 05, 2021, 05:20:18 AM
I'm still looking for some kind of consensus on what makes something osr or not; some people immediately reject as osr anything that draws from 3e in the slightest...such as the template concept, vampire or fiendish or what have you; I thought templates were a great innovation personally. Feats had potential, though they were not truly new in that for many of them they were what had been class features gained at certain levels, such as the ability to brew potions or make magic items. Admittedly feats did grow out of hand once that type of gamer who views things as a card game with stacking effects realized that they could be a vehicle for optimization rather than a customization or limitation concept.

When I try to convert D&D stuff into D6 system, I typically tap 3e because it tended to list ability scores for everything, which is how D6 works mechanically; Strength of 18 (becoming 4D under D6) with skills such as melee combat based on this ability score starting at said die code, modified upward by BaB as pips (so a BaB of +5 would be 1D+2 on top of the base ability of 4D for an 18 strength, total of 5D+2 for example).

Some would say that because I did the calculation with 3e numbers and concepts rather than 1e equivalent that it would thus not be osr even if actual play felt like it was made entirely out of becmi nostalgia. I can understand gatekeeping to ward off combat wheelchairs and non-binary owlbears, but some of the hostility to the idea that I was trying to do osr with such baffles me.
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: finarvyn on January 05, 2021, 07:54:36 AM
As a person who got started with OD&D before AD&D was even a thing, I think that the point of rules was to provide structure. The rulebooks were a general guide and most of the time we followed what the rules said, but the stated philosophy was also to make the game what you needed so our group would change parts that we didn't like. We didn't buy the boxed set with the INTENT of throwing out the rules, but we bought the game because it provided a starting point. Back then, keep in mind that there was exactly one choice to pick from. Now, with hundreds of RPGs on the market, one might shop around to find something that fits your style but back then there weren't all of those choices.

It's also interesting to read accounts of the original campaigns, and to realize that neither Dave nor Gary actually played by the rules in the boxed set. Part of the fun of the day was having stuff happen behind the screen where the players didn't exactly know the odds or didn't have access to all of the charts. Some of the players from that time have told me that to this day they don't think they have actually played D&D, as their experiences don't exactly match what they see in the rulebooks.

My group didn't know any of this back in the day, however, and we assumed that we were "supposed" to use the rules as guidelines and then fill in the gaps as needed. It is funny to read the old editorials in Strategic Review and Dragon, and to see how they change from "don't ask me about this stuff" to "follow my guidance exactly and buy my books." :D
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: finarvyn on January 05, 2021, 08:08:08 AM
I'm still looking for some kind of consensus on what makes something osr or not; some people immediately reject as osr anything that draws from 3e in the slightest...such as the template concept, vampire or fiendish or what have you...
To me, OSR is more of an attitude or philosophy than anything else. I have no problem with newer innovations in my OSR games, but I think that a lot of folks were very upset that WotC blew up D&D and redid so much to create 3E and that's why they reject any innovations from 2000 or later. I run a 5E game for my family and feel like it's very OSR in feel even though it's 5E, because of the way I run the game and the rules I choose to use or ignore.

Good luck getting a consensus, however. Nobody seems to agree on this topic. :(
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: Steven Mitchell on January 05, 2021, 08:37:21 AM
I'm still looking for some kind of consensus on what makes something osr or not; some people immediately reject as osr anything that draws from 3e in the slightest...such as the template concept, vampire or fiendish or what have you...
To me, OSR is more of an attitude or philosophy than anything else. I have no problem with newer innovations in my OSR games, but I think that a lot of folks were very upset that WotC blew up D&D and redid so much to create 3E and that's why they reject any innovations from 2000 or later. I run a 5E game for my family and feel like it's very OSR in feel even though it's 5E, because of the way I run the game and the rules I choose to use or ignore.

Good luck getting a consensus, however. Nobody seems to agree on this topic. :(

I'm in a neighboring spot, maybe a little less OSR.  The games I run aren't OSR, but they definitely have some old school elements and feel.  Which is strange when I think about it, because I say it that way because there are some elements of the OSR that don't appeal to me.  Which means that I must have some notion of what OSR is in my head to draw those kind of lines, yet I would be hard-pressed to say exactly where the line are.  :P
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: christopherkubasik on January 05, 2021, 09:11:22 AM
FWIW, I have never seen a single OSR game attempt to mimic OD&D as it was printed.

I’m running my OD&D game (set in Dolmenwood) using the Delving Deeper rules, which are the OD&D rules with cleaned up text. Delving Deeper was inspired by the White Box rules, which also cleaves closely to the OD&D rules.

There are a few variations in each rules set from the 1974 edition, but both (especially Delving Deeper) are pretty much the original rules.

Playing it now. Have been for months. As noted in my previous post my players (none of whom played earlier editions of D&D) seem to be loving it.

Your assessment of the game as a framework are spot on. We are building out the logic of the world through the rules as we play. We’re having a a good time with that part of it.
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: HappyDaze on January 05, 2021, 09:19:56 AM
Early D&D didn’t worship design for design’s sake.  I consider this a plus. 

It’s very clear from the material they were putting out guidance/rules, but the emphasis is on the activity instead of the rules.  “We’ll figure it out while on the field, If we need to” is the overriding principle.

“Get there the firstest with the mostest” - the rules put out cover whatever came up in play to that point, instead of trying to imagine all the things that could be played and having a rule ready.  I also find that a strength.  The emphasis is on action rather than contemplation.  If you understand the rule that works in common situations, you can extrapolate for corner cases.  This is a key point of mastery in any activity - the ability to work off-road.  Much more efficient than building all the roads that could maybe be needed, for the satisfaction of a complete map.

Early D&D also wasn’t all that left-brained.  It dips into left-brained thinking when it needs to but not as a foundation or first-order.  Those who are first-order left-brained go to the bolts and get confused as to why the material isn’t their style of turtle all the way down.  It’s almost inconceivable to someone using logic as a first principle

We also don’t want rule sets we won’t play to drain our pool of possible players.  RPGs are a time-intensive group activity; they are zero-sum games.  You can read a lot of them but only play very few.  While dabbling can increase the number of systems used, if someone wants to play a lot of their favorite game, persuasive promotion of another game is going to get an emotional response (left-thinkers will justify this with arguments reframed-to-logic).  An example of this sometimes bubbles out as “I want to play game X but everyone wants to play D&D and I’m sick of it”

I personally like OD&D and AD&D 1E because, while the character was the innovation, it’s still almost an afterthought.  It was necessary to play, so it was created.  But it was still very much there a concession to necessity in order to play rather than as a mini game unto itself; there’s not really enough there to be satisfying if unused at the table.  Which is how I want my game - incomplete/poorly suited for solo character-centric daydreaming.  Little magic outside of groups discovering a world not on their sheet around a dining table while sharing a pizza.
That kind of rule set is fine for an early approach. It's shameful to still be using that approach 30+ years later. A lot has been learned and not utilizing the accumulated experience to make better games out of a sense of nostalgia makes for crap that repeats the flaws of what came before. For this reason, I see no value in the OSR approach or its products.
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: christopherkubasik on January 05, 2021, 09:34:41 AM
For this reason, I see no value in the OSR approach or its products.
Noted!
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: Razor 007 on January 05, 2021, 10:13:55 AM
This is something I'm having trouble understanding about people with a deific fondness for games that had rules but then you ignored them or made up your own. I won't lie and say that I haven't just fudged rules, or just rolled with whatever was happening to move the game along. But that was made on a foundation of rules I generally liked and could use as written most of the time. Because that was a product I paid for. Functional rules.

When I hear some people reminisce about old school games, the fact that the rules were such vague and contradicting, unfinished, unrefined, clusterfuck is talked about with deep fondness. That somehow having bad rules, or non-existent rules made it better because if it was bad, then you can ignore them and make your own. Or just improv all the time.

So wouldn't the logical endpoint just be an improv night without any rules at all? If consistent rules and character-building gets in the way of the DM telling the story he wants, why have any rules at all? Why not just write up a short story with some people occasionally assisting with minor suggestions for individual characters?

Fundamentally I believe everybody can have the fun they want. Really this is more conceptual confusion for me. Personally, I believe it's just nostalgia.


It's like ordering something in an Asian restaurant, and then picking out the broccoli.  You really like the dish, but you hate broccoli. 

OD&D has 90% of what I want, and I spend my time chasing the other 10%. 

AD&D has more than I want, and I spend my time ignoring what I don't want.

Neither has exactly what I want, but both are very cool games.
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: SHARK on January 05, 2021, 10:29:57 AM
Early D&D didn’t worship design for design’s sake.  I consider this a plus. 

It’s very clear from the material they were putting out guidance/rules, but the emphasis is on the activity instead of the rules.  “We’ll figure it out while on the field, If we need to” is the overriding principle.

“Get there the firstest with the mostest” - the rules put out cover whatever came up in play to that point, instead of trying to imagine all the things that could be played and having a rule ready.  I also find that a strength.  The emphasis is on action rather than contemplation.  If you understand the rule that works in common situations, you can extrapolate for corner cases.  This is a key point of mastery in any activity - the ability to work off-road.  Much more efficient than building all the roads that could maybe be needed, for the satisfaction of a complete map.

Early D&D also wasn’t all that left-brained.  It dips into left-brained thinking when it needs to but not as a foundation or first-order.  Those who are first-order left-brained go to the bolts and get confused as to why the material isn’t their style of turtle all the way down.  It’s almost inconceivable to someone using logic as a first principle

We also don’t want rule sets we won’t play to drain our pool of possible players.  RPGs are a time-intensive group activity; they are zero-sum games.  You can read a lot of them but only play very few.  While dabbling can increase the number of systems used, if someone wants to play a lot of their favorite game, persuasive promotion of another game is going to get an emotional response (left-thinkers will justify this with arguments reframed-to-logic).  An example of this sometimes bubbles out as “I want to play game X but everyone wants to play D&D and I’m sick of it”

I personally like OD&D and AD&D 1E because, while the character was the innovation, it’s still almost an afterthought.  It was necessary to play, so it was created.  But it was still very much there a concession to necessity in order to play rather than as a mini game unto itself; there’s not really enough there to be satisfying if unused at the table.  Which is how I want my game - incomplete/poorly suited for solo character-centric daydreaming.  Little magic outside of groups discovering a world not on their sheet around a dining table while sharing a pizza.

Greetings!

Excellent points, my friend! I greatly enjoy all of these aspects of OD&D and AD&D. I also embrace them as much as practical in 5E. The rough, free-form approach of OD&D and AD&D is brilliant, very flexible and open, and promotes a kind of focus on core attributes that ensure a fun and robust campaign which can be very successful as well as inspiring--and does so while avoiding indulging the emotionally damaged and neurotic troglodytes of the hobby which seek to drag everyone else into their weird fetishes and narcissistic jello.

It is precisely for this reason that I see great value in the OSR approach and its products. ;D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: HappyDaze on January 05, 2021, 10:46:10 AM
Early D&D didn’t worship design for design’s sake.  I consider this a plus. 

It’s very clear from the material they were putting out guidance/rules, but the emphasis is on the activity instead of the rules.  “We’ll figure it out while on the field, If we need to” is the overriding principle.

“Get there the firstest with the mostest” - the rules put out cover whatever came up in play to that point, instead of trying to imagine all the things that could be played and having a rule ready.  I also find that a strength.  The emphasis is on action rather than contemplation.  If you understand the rule that works in common situations, you can extrapolate for corner cases.  This is a key point of mastery in any activity - the ability to work off-road.  Much more efficient than building all the roads that could maybe be needed, for the satisfaction of a complete map.

Early D&D also wasn’t all that left-brained.  It dips into left-brained thinking when it needs to but not as a foundation or first-order.  Those who are first-order left-brained go to the bolts and get confused as to why the material isn’t their style of turtle all the way down.  It’s almost inconceivable to someone using logic as a first principle

We also don’t want rule sets we won’t play to drain our pool of possible players.  RPGs are a time-intensive group activity; they are zero-sum games.  You can read a lot of them but only play very few.  While dabbling can increase the number of systems used, if someone wants to play a lot of their favorite game, persuasive promotion of another game is going to get an emotional response (left-thinkers will justify this with arguments reframed-to-logic).  An example of this sometimes bubbles out as “I want to play game X but everyone wants to play D&D and I’m sick of it”

I personally like OD&D and AD&D 1E because, while the character was the innovation, it’s still almost an afterthought.  It was necessary to play, so it was created.  But it was still very much there a concession to necessity in order to play rather than as a mini game unto itself; there’s not really enough there to be satisfying if unused at the table.  Which is how I want my game - incomplete/poorly suited for solo character-centric daydreaming.  Little magic outside of groups discovering a world not on their sheet around a dining table while sharing a pizza.

Greetings!

Excellent points, my friend! I greatly enjoy all of these aspects of OD&D and AD&D. I also embrace them as much as practical in 5E. The rough, free-form approach of OD&D and AD&D is brilliant, very flexible and open, and promotes a kind of focus on core attributes that ensure a fun and robust campaign which can be very successful as well as inspiring--and does so while avoiding indulging the emotionally damaged and neurotic troglodytes of the hobby which seek to drag everyone else into their weird fetishes and narcissistic jello.

It is precisely for this reason that I see great value in the OSR approach and its products. ;D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Next time make sure to lube your ears before you shove your head so far up his ass.
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: Eirikrautha on January 05, 2021, 11:19:15 AM
That kind of rule set is fine for an early approach. It's shameful to still be using that approach 30+ years later. A lot has been learned and not utilizing the accumulated experience to make better games out of a sense of nostalgia makes for crap that repeats the flaws of what came before. For this reason, I see no value in the OSR approach or its products.

There's that word again, "better."  I've played later editions of D&D, and non-D&D RPGs, that were in no way "better games" than the ones I played with the cluster**** that is the AD&D ruleset.  I play and run 5e now, mostly, but there are still parts of 5e that I handle more like I would in 1e (I don't need a d20 to resolve every test... sometimes a bell curve makes more sense, like when you are figuring jumping distance, than a linear probability.  But the Holy Book of Modern Design states, "Thou shalt have a unified mechanic," and no one modifies the mechanics when they should).  "Newer" does not mean "better" (any more than "older" does).  I'm all for accumulated experience, which is why I think it's hysterical that even WotC is hearkening back to an "OSR" feel for 5e (and its "rulings, not rules" motto).  Maybe their accumulated experiences have suggested that some things were done "better" in the older editions.

Rejecting out of hand what has been done in the past is just as stupid as refusing to consider what might be improved in the future...
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: estar on January 05, 2021, 11:28:25 AM
So wouldn't the logical endpoint just be an improv night without any rules at all? If consistent rules and character-building gets in the way of the DM telling the story he wants, why have any rules at all? Why not just write up a short story with some people occasionally assisting with minor suggestions for individual characters?

Fundamentally I believe everybody can have the fun they want. Really this is more conceptual confusion for me. Personally, I believe it's just nostalgia.
The fundamental rule that in my opinion all RPGs share is that The players interact with a setting as their character with a human referee adjudicating their actions.

You do that then you are playing tabletop roleplaying.

The key elements here are

That the players are playing as a individual character.
That the character exist in a setting that they interact with (role-play, combat, etc)
That the human referee adjudicates the result of what they do.

The rules, like OD&D, are the details of how to make that happen. But they are not the game itself so to speak. The referee describing a setting, the players describing their characters, the process of describing that they do as their character within the setting and the referee describing the results of what happens. That is the game being played. Coupled with an interesting setting, like a maze with rooms filled with monsters and treasure, it makes for a compelling hobby.

The details of how this accomplished is up to you and is purely a matter of taste not requirement. If the referee is that good at communication, and know the setting, and details of what characters could do cold, then there may be no rulebooks or even dice in sight.

But that is rare, because most of us are folks who just want to enjoy an afternoon or evening hobby with friends. So rely on other people to describe how to deal with these thing or in many cases describing the setting and what can be done there (adventures).

But people tastes vary. There is a sweet spot that D&D and Pathfinder over the years manages to hit squarely. But more than a few like use material that more detailed. Settings like Harn, Tekumel, or Glorantha. Rules to adjudicate actions in more detail like GURPS, Rolemaster, etc. Other get by with less detail and stick with OD&D, or use Microlite, Fudge, etc. Some like one system approach better even though they are the same relative complexity Runequest 3rd edition versus AD&D 2nd Edition for example.

If you want to get people preference for minimal system or no system at all. Then try running a one-shot with no rules. Outline a setting or scenario. Set some character guideline (i.e. are character Conan-like, novices, veterans, or what?), have the players describe their characters naturally. Then commence play using the dice in the way that your experience and knowledge think best suits the circumstance. Just try to be consistent.



Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: HappyDaze on January 05, 2021, 11:41:40 AM

That the players are playing as a individual character.

I don't know if you meant to exclude the idea of a player controlling multiple characters from your criteria. I believe that this was actually more common 30 years ago than it is today. Few games address this, whether to directly mention it as an option or to disallow it.
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: VisionStorm on January 05, 2021, 12:20:38 PM
That kind of rule set is fine for an early approach. It's shameful to still be using that approach 30+ years later. A lot has been learned and not utilizing the accumulated experience to make better games out of a sense of nostalgia makes for crap that repeats the flaws of what came before. For this reason, I see no value in the OSR approach or its products.

There's that word again, "better."  I've played later editions of D&D, and non-D&D RPGs, that were in no way "better games" than the ones I played with the cluster**** that is the AD&D ruleset.  I play and run 5e now, mostly, but there are still parts of 5e that I handle more like I would in 1e (I don't need a d20 to resolve every test... sometimes a bell curve makes more sense, like when you are figuring jumping distance, than a linear probability.  But the Holy Book of Modern Design states, "Thou shalt have a unified mechanic," and no one modifies the mechanics when they should).  "Newer" does not mean "better" (any more than "older" does).  I'm all for accumulated experience, which is why I think it's hysterical that even WotC is hearkening back to an "OSR" feel for 5e (and its "rulings, not rules" motto).  Maybe their accumulated experiences have suggested that some things were done "better" in the older editions.

Rejecting out of hand what has been done in the past is just as stupid as refusing to consider what might be improved in the future...

I pretty much agree with this point, but sometimes, certain rules or approaches can really be "better", depending on what you're trying to do or want out of the game. It all depends on what you're trying to accomplish and what your standards are, but some methods can also be more effective at achieving certain goals than others.

Saying "roll a Strength check (either the newer d20 + STR mod vs DC, or the old roll d20 under your Score)" is generally more intuitive and easier and faster to implement on the fly than "roll an arbitrary fixed number derived from your Strength you have to look up in the PHB on a d6 to Open Doors", or "roll a completely different % to Bend Bars/Lift Gates" or "d20 under your Strength score anything else not specifically covered in the rules". Why not just make everything d20/roll under if you're going for old school mechanics, when d20/roll under already covers everything you can do with your ability scores anyway?

I'm also not sure what part of jump distance specifically necessitates a bell curve, or why you can't simply use multiple dice as your unified mechanic if you prefer a bell curve, or even treat jump distance as a separate type of roll (much like damage) if you prefer a bell curve just for that, but are OK with swingy dice for ability/skill checks. What part of unified mechanics prohibit you from saying "on a successful Jump check, roll 2d6 (or whatever) to determine jump distance"?
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: estar on January 05, 2021, 12:23:24 PM

That the players are playing as a individual character.

I don't know if you meant to exclude the idea of a player controlling multiple characters from your criteria. I believe that this was actually more common 30 years ago than it is today. Few games address this, whether to directly mention it as an option or to disallow it.
Players with multiple characters are not excluded. They are playing as individual characters just shifting over from one to the other.
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: EOTB on January 05, 2021, 02:19:27 PM

That kind of rule set is fine for an early approach. It's shameful to still be using that approach 30+ years later. A lot has been learned and not utilizing the accumulated experience to make better games out of a sense of nostalgia makes for crap that repeats the flaws of what came before. For this reason, I see no value in the OSR approach or its products.

It’s all about finding your tribe.  Someone expediting that process for you is a blessing, not a rejection
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: Shasarak on January 05, 2021, 03:05:29 PM
Point #1
I had a very long thread on ENworld once about "why THAC0 rocks." I really do like it. While I can agree that ascending AC is more intuitive, there are some fundamental things that it does that ascending doesn't:
Bounded design -- AC 0 is around the natural maximum, while -10 is the magically enhanced maximum.
You can do the math once against a single foe (it's more intuitive to do so).
Designed so that GM can decide how "player facing" the mechanic is. (in 1e the attack tables were in the DMG!)

Frankly I find it easier with large groups of players and monsters, perhaps that is just because it encourages me to have all the info I need at hand, so I am not waiting for a player to tell me if the monster hit them, I already know.

My real point here is, assumptions that something is "obviously better" may just be overlooking somethings positive qualities.

Going up or going down does not change bounded design.

Thats not how maths works.
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: Eirikrautha on January 05, 2021, 03:14:08 PM
...or even treat jump distance as a separate type of roll (much like damage) if you prefer a bell curve just for that...

Well, that was my point.  Occasionally I find that using a particular mechanic leads to unrealistic or immersion-breaking results.  So, rather than use the mechanics present in the rules, I'll use a different die roll that better matches my player's expectations (distances that are relatively consistent, with only occasional outliers, as opposed to a linear probability that leads to short distances equally as often as heroic distances).  Hence my original statement that you seem to be repeating in your response...
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: VisionStorm on January 05, 2021, 04:08:48 PM
...or even treat jump distance as a separate type of roll (much like damage) if you prefer a bell curve just for that...

Well, that was my point.  Occasionally I find that using a particular mechanic leads to unrealistic or immersion-breaking results.  So, rather than use the mechanics present in the rules, I'll use a different die roll that better matches my player's expectations (distances that are relatively consistent, with only occasional outliers, as opposed to a linear probability that leads to short distances equally as often as heroic distances). Hence my original statement that you seem to be repeating in your response...

Yeah, but the end of my response in that same paragraph also asks:

Quote
What part of unified mechanics prohibit you from saying "on a successful Jump check, roll 2d6 (or whatever) to determine jump distance"?

The point of unified mechanics is to provide consistent mechanics to handle ability checks, whether action resolution or resistance checks, or any other type of roll where a character's or creature's (or even an object sometimes) ability is being tested. That doesn't mean that other types of rolls can't ever exist for things that aren't directly related to ability checks, such as damage rolls, handling odds for random events happening (such as checking if more enemies show up or if random enemies left treasure), or maybe even determining the outcome of a successful ability check (such as jump distances, or perhaps the value of works of art). So saying that you'd rather use some other type of roll for things that aren't necessarily directly related to ability checks isn't really an argument against unified mechanics.

And your specific argument is against using linear probability for determining jump distances, which fails to account for unified mechanics that use non-linear probabilities, such as rolling 2d6 or 3d6 for ability checks instead of 1d20. So it isn't even an argument regarding unified mechanics in general, but an edge case that applies only when you use linear probabilities as part of you mechanic, and only if we accept your premise that we can't have relatively consistent jump distances with only occasional outliers when using mechanics that have linear probabilities, when I could come up with a few ways we can.

For example, we could have a fixed jump distance (perhaps modified by a related ability, like Strength) as a base that always applies by default on a successful check, and then grant a bonus  (perhaps +50% or +1d6 feet to keep it simple) to it on a "Critical Success" result in the ability check (perhaps on a natural 20, or a result 10+ above needed), or a penalty (perhaps half base distance to keep it simple) on a failed roll. BOOM! Consistent distances with outliers on a linear probability unified mechanic action roll!

And there could be other ways to handle it within a unified mechanic framework using linear probabilities. Point being that just because you can't think of another way or prefer 2d6 (or whatever) regardless that doesn't mean that other options aren't there, and it doesn't make it an argument against unified mechanics, but rather a statement of stylistic preference.
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: Eirikrautha on January 05, 2021, 05:36:06 PM
...or even treat jump distance as a separate type of roll (much like damage) if you prefer a bell curve just for that...

Well, that was my point.  Occasionally I find that using a particular mechanic leads to unrealistic or immersion-breaking results.  So, rather than use the mechanics present in the rules, I'll use a different die roll that better matches my player's expectations (distances that are relatively consistent, with only occasional outliers, as opposed to a linear probability that leads to short distances equally as often as heroic distances). Hence my original statement that you seem to be repeating in your response...

Yeah, but the end of my response in that same paragraph also asks:

Quote
What part of unified mechanics prohibit you from saying "on a successful Jump check, roll 2d6 (or whatever) to determine jump distance"?

The point of unified mechanics is to provide consistent mechanics to handle ability checks, whether action resolution or resistance checks, or any other type of roll where a character's or creature's (or even an object sometimes) ability is being tested. That doesn't mean that other types of rolls can't ever exist for things that aren't directly related to ability checks, such as damage rolls, handling odds for random events happening (such as checking if more enemies show up or if random enemies left treasure), or maybe even determining the outcome of a successful ability check (such as jump distances, or perhaps the value of works of art). So saying that you'd rather use some other type of roll for things that aren't necessarily directly related to ability checks isn't really an argument against unified mechanics.

And your specific argument is against using linear probability for determining jump distances, which fails to account for unified mechanics that use non-linear probabilities, such as rolling 2d6 or 3d6 for ability checks instead of 1d20. So it isn't even an argument regarding unified mechanics in general, but an edge case that applies only when you use linear probabilities as part of you mechanic, and only if we accept your premise that we can't have relatively consistent jump distances with only occasional outliers when using mechanics that have linear probabilities, when I could come up with a few ways we can.

For example, we could have a fixed jump distance (perhaps modified by a related ability, like Strength) as a base that always applies by default on a successful check, and then grant a bonus  (perhaps +50% or +1d6 feet to keep it simple) to it on a "Critical Success" result in the ability check (perhaps on a natural 20, or a result 10+ above needed), or a penalty (perhaps half base distance to keep it simple) on a failed roll. BOOM! Consistent distances with outliers on a linear probability unified mechanic action roll!

And there could be other ways to handle it within a unified mechanic framework using linear probabilities. Point being that just because you can't think of another way or prefer 2d6 (or whatever) regardless that doesn't mean that other options aren't there, and it doesn't make it an argument against unified mechanics, but rather a statement of stylistic preference.
First, the entire point about unified mechanics is that they are intended to resolve most, if not all, game situations using the same dice and rolls.  No kidding, you can change mechanics to suit your tastes.  That's not the point.  The point was that many (if not most) modern games are designed with unified mechanics in mind, and this was pointed to as a way that games have "advanced" to be "better" than older versions.  But they aren't better.  They have advantages (ease of learning, ease of use, etc.) and disadvantages (edge cases result in broken verisimilitude, mechanics shape the fiction instead of vice versa), and individuals have to decide which trade-off works for them.

As for  you suggestion about using success amounts to vary distances jumped, it make do what you want it to, but it is not even close to generating a bell curve like I want.  I don't know if you know the statistics or not, but without fundamentally changing the way bonuses work on a d20 roll, (and changing success from target numbers to ranges), you can't simulate the necessary curve with a linear roll (you could chart out a standard distribution for the d20 values, but at that point why not roll dice that already accomplish it?).

So, back to the main point, unified mechanics have advantages and disadvantages, compared to other ways of structuring game mechanics.  One is not "better" than the other (which was the OP's original contention about modern game mechanics in general).
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: Shasarak on January 05, 2021, 06:22:39 PM
Who the hell has verisimilitude about how far their rpg character can jump on a bell curve?

Thats not even a thing.
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: consolcwby on January 05, 2021, 06:28:03 PM
Who the hell has verisimilitude about how far their rpg character can jump on a bell curve?

Thats not even a thing.
WHAT?!
Didn't you ever want your dwarf character to be able to slam dunk a basketball through a Green Dragon's nose?!
WTF DO U EVEN PLAY?!!
 ;D
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: VisionStorm on January 05, 2021, 06:56:28 PM
...or even treat jump distance as a separate type of roll (much like damage) if you prefer a bell curve just for that...

Well, that was my point.  Occasionally I find that using a particular mechanic leads to unrealistic or immersion-breaking results.  So, rather than use the mechanics present in the rules, I'll use a different die roll that better matches my player's expectations (distances that are relatively consistent, with only occasional outliers, as opposed to a linear probability that leads to short distances equally as often as heroic distances). Hence my original statement that you seem to be repeating in your response...

Yeah, but the end of my response in that same paragraph also asks:

Quote
What part of unified mechanics prohibit you from saying "on a successful Jump check, roll 2d6 (or whatever) to determine jump distance"?

The point of unified mechanics is to provide consistent mechanics to handle ability checks, whether action resolution or resistance checks, or any other type of roll where a character's or creature's (or even an object sometimes) ability is being tested. That doesn't mean that other types of rolls can't ever exist for things that aren't directly related to ability checks, such as damage rolls, handling odds for random events happening (such as checking if more enemies show up or if random enemies left treasure), or maybe even determining the outcome of a successful ability check (such as jump distances, or perhaps the value of works of art). So saying that you'd rather use some other type of roll for things that aren't necessarily directly related to ability checks isn't really an argument against unified mechanics.

And your specific argument is against using linear probability for determining jump distances, which fails to account for unified mechanics that use non-linear probabilities, such as rolling 2d6 or 3d6 for ability checks instead of 1d20. So it isn't even an argument regarding unified mechanics in general, but an edge case that applies only when you use linear probabilities as part of you mechanic, and only if we accept your premise that we can't have relatively consistent jump distances with only occasional outliers when using mechanics that have linear probabilities, when I could come up with a few ways we can.

For example, we could have a fixed jump distance (perhaps modified by a related ability, like Strength) as a base that always applies by default on a successful check, and then grant a bonus  (perhaps +50% or +1d6 feet to keep it simple) to it on a "Critical Success" result in the ability check (perhaps on a natural 20, or a result 10+ above needed), or a penalty (perhaps half base distance to keep it simple) on a failed roll. BOOM! Consistent distances with outliers on a linear probability unified mechanic action roll!

And there could be other ways to handle it within a unified mechanic framework using linear probabilities. Point being that just because you can't think of another way or prefer 2d6 (or whatever) regardless that doesn't mean that other options aren't there, and it doesn't make it an argument against unified mechanics, but rather a statement of stylistic preference.
First, the entire point about unified mechanics is that they are intended to resolve most, if not all, game situations using the same dice and rolls.  No kidding, you can change mechanics to suit your tastes.  That's not the point.  The point was that many (if not most) modern games are designed with unified mechanics in mind, and this was pointed to as a way that games have "advanced" to be "better" than older versions.  But they aren't better.  They have advantages (ease of learning, ease of use, etc.) and disadvantages (edge cases result in broken verisimilitude, mechanics shape the fiction instead of vice versa), and individuals have to decide which trade-off works for them.

As for  you suggestion about using success amounts to vary distances jumped, it make do what you want it to, but it is not even close to generating a bell curve like I want.  I don't know if you know the statistics or not, but without fundamentally changing the way bonuses work on a d20 roll, (and changing success from target numbers to ranges), you can't simulate the necessary curve with a linear roll (you could chart out a standard distribution for the d20 values, but at that point why not roll dice that already accomplish it?).

So, back to the main point, unified mechanics have advantages and disadvantages, compared to other ways of structuring game mechanics.  One is not "better" than the other (which was the OP's original contention about modern game mechanics in general).

I still disagree with your main point because the "disadvantages" that you're attributing the unified mechanics still exist in other types of mechanics, but the benefits of unified mechanics still apply for the vast majority of the system with the only exception being those edge cases. So in the aggregate unified mechanics still come out on top in terms of efficiency because their benefits over other types of mechanics still apply the vast majority of the time, and the circumstances where they don't apply (or where you prefer to handle things some other way, even if you could still handle them using unified mechanics) are only minimal and would always exist regardless of what system you use.

You personally preferring a bell curve to determine random jump distance is not an inherent or unique limitation of unified mechanics (or even exists in unified mechanics that use a bell curve)--that's a limitation for ANY system that doesn't give you 1) randomly generated jump distances and 2) specifically uses a bell curve to generate them.

Personally, I don't care about precise jump distances because in my experience they've never been a factor in actual play. Jumping in-game is always tied to some type of end goal, such as jumping across a chasm to reach the other side, or over some obstacle (like a fence) as part of a move action to attack an enemy on the other side in the same round, or to jump high enough to reach a balcony or something, so they can climb up. And all of those cases can be easily handled by simply assigning a difficulty value for the task and having them make an ability check to see if they managed to do it. I have never encountered a situation where I needed to know the exact distance a character jumped, but if I ever did, there are ways to still determine them using unified mechanics (even if you don't want to) or even using a side mechanic, similar to the way some systems with unified mechanics (such as 3e+ D&D) still roll damage differently than how they handle action resolution.
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: VisionStorm on January 05, 2021, 06:58:03 PM
Who the hell has verisimilitude about how far their rpg character can jump on a bell curve?

Thats not even a thing.

It is if you're Eirikrautha and you're fishing for edge cases to claim unified mechanics fail in game play.  ;)
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: Shasarak on January 05, 2021, 07:20:13 PM
Who the hell has verisimilitude about how far their rpg character can jump on a bell curve?

Thats not even a thing.

It is if you're Eirikrautha and you're fishing for edge cases to claim unified mechanics fail in game play.  ;)

If you were serious about calculating jumping distance then Weight and Speed would be more important then Strength.
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: Eirikrautha on January 05, 2021, 09:27:51 PM
Who the hell has verisimilitude about how far their rpg character can jump on a bell curve?

Thats not even a thing.

It is if you're Eirikrautha and you're fishing for edge cases to claim unified mechanics fail in game play.  ;)

Nowhere did I claim that.  Since you are apparently talking to yourself anyway, I'll leave you to do so in peace.
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: Eirikrautha on January 05, 2021, 09:30:04 PM
Who the hell has verisimilitude about how far their rpg character can jump on a bell curve?

Thats not even a thing.

It is if you're Eirikrautha and you're fishing for edge cases to claim unified mechanics fail in game play.  ;)

If you were serious about calculating jumping distance then Weight and Speed would be more important then Strength.

Standing long jump?  Speed = 0, so distance = 0, eh?  Solves the problem of calculating it, I guess...
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: VisionStorm on January 05, 2021, 10:01:00 PM
Who the hell has verisimilitude about how far their rpg character can jump on a bell curve?

Thats not even a thing.

It is if you're Eirikrautha and you're fishing for edge cases to claim unified mechanics fail in game play.  ;)

If you were serious about calculating jumping distance then Weight and Speed would be more important then Strength.

That would be racist against dwarves.

And orcs.  :o

Who the hell has verisimilitude about how far their rpg character can jump on a bell curve?

Thats not even a thing.

It is if you're Eirikrautha and you're fishing for edge cases to claim unified mechanics fail in game play.  ;)

Nowhere did I claim that.  Since you are apparently talking to yourself anyway, I'll leave you to do so in peace.

You have no valid counterarguments. I get it.  ;)
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: Thondor on January 06, 2021, 11:26:19 AM
Point #1
I had a very long thread on ENworld once about "why THAC0 rocks." I really do like it. While I can agree that ascending AC is more intuitive, there are some fundamental things that it does that ascending doesn't:
Bounded design -- AC 0 is around the natural maximum, while -10 is the magically enhanced maximum.
You can do the math once against a single foe (it's more intuitive to do so).
Designed so that GM can decide how "player facing" the mechanic is. (in 1e the attack tables were in the DMG!)

Frankly I find it easier with large groups of players and monsters, perhaps that is just because it encourages me to have all the info I need at hand, so I am not waiting for a player to tell me if the monster hit them, I already know.

My real point here is, assumptions that something is "obviously better" may just be overlooking somethings positive qualities.

Going up or going down does not change bounded design.

Thats not how maths works.

Technically true. But they can feel different. People sometimes suggest that subtraction is "harder" for instance.

Meanwhile, starting at 10 and going down to -10 feels more bounded than starting at 10 and going up to 30 (why not 40?). The first also has a self evident "center point" while it can be less obvious that a 20 is the center.

Math is math, but in games how you get there can have an impact on perceptions.

Rolling a d12 for a 50% chance  vs d100 vs flipping a coin has no meaningful difference, but it feels different at the table.
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: Thondor on January 06, 2021, 11:38:49 AM
That kind of rule set is fine for an early approach. It's shameful to still be using that approach 30+ years later. A lot has been learned and not utilizing the accumulated experience to make better games out of a sense of nostalgia makes for crap that repeats the flaws of what came before. For this reason, I see no value in the OSR approach or its products.

There's that word again, "better."  I've played later editions of D&D, and non-D&D RPGs, that were in no way "better games" than the ones I played with the cluster**** that is the AD&D ruleset.  I play and run 5e now, mostly, but there are still parts of 5e that I handle more like I would in 1e (I don't need a d20 to resolve every test... sometimes a bell curve makes more sense, like when you are figuring jumping distance, than a linear probability.  But the Holy Book of Modern Design states, "Thou shalt have a unified mechanic," and no one modifies the mechanics when they should).  "Newer" does not mean "better" (any more than "older" does).  I'm all for accumulated experience, which is why I think it's hysterical that even WotC is hearkening back to an "OSR" feel for 5e (and its "rulings, not rules" motto).  Maybe their accumulated experiences have suggested that some things were done "better" in the older editions.

Rejecting out of hand what has been done in the past is just as stupid as refusing to consider what might be improved in the future...

I'm with Eirikrautha here, great post.

Also, It is not about the jumping example specifically.

Having non-unified mechanics can be useful. Maybe you have a very specific type of game in mind, pherhaps there is a dichotomy setup -- at night you fight with x mechanic, but during the day you (mostly) use social skills with y mechanic.


Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: Armchair Gamer on January 06, 2021, 11:56:50 AM
Having non-unified mechanics can be useful. Maybe you have a very specific type of game in mind, pherhaps there is a dichotomy setup -- at night you fight with x mechanic, but during the day you (mostly) use social skills with y mechanic.

  There's some interesting stuff in the 2E supplement Creative Campaigning about changing up the dice for ability checks to reduce variance, produce more 'believable' results, and the like. Along those lines, I've sometimes toyed with the idea of using the standard D&D scale but varying the dice depending on situation--d20 for high-swing situations like combat or saving throws, 3d6 for more 'routine' skill checks, 2d10 or the link for things that fall in-between. It's never gone beyond mental doodling, though.
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: Eric Diaz on January 06, 2021, 12:48:15 PM
One thing about "unified mechanics" is that it is a bit of a fallacy in current D&D.

Rolling d20+mods once to see who "wins" a skill contest is different than rolling d20+mods then 1d8+5 for damage, then rolling again until you run out of HP (or rolling initiative etc.), and also different form rolling nothing but MAYBE letting your enemy roll a saving throw.

D&D has three types of checks: attacks, saves and ability rolls. Not to mention spells. They all work slightly differently. A "natural 20" only matters in combat, for example; this isn't unified.

Also... there are very few games that resolve a 10-minute combat with a single roll, but many will resolve other 10-minute tasks with a single roll.

In practice, this means a 5th-level wizard can never, in a million years, beat a 5th-level fighter in a sword fight, but the fighter will beat the wizard's arcana check about 10% of the time (or something like that).

Many times, "unified mechanics" are a illusion.

With that said, the more truthful feeling of "I like to use the same dice for everything (except damage because we are used to that)" is okay too.

Also, IMO, in practice, a bell curve works best for skills, but it is very boring for combat. I noticed that playing lots of GURPS and D&D. Ultimately, I chose to play modern D&D as written, just distributing lots of automatic successes to circumvent the obvious flaws in using a d20 as outlined above.
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: VisionStorm on January 06, 2021, 02:06:28 PM
One thing about "unified mechanics" is that it is a bit of a fallacy in current D&D.

Rolling d20+mods once to see who "wins" a skill contest is different than rolling d20+mods then 1d8+5 for damage, then rolling again until you run out of HP (or rolling initiative etc.), and also different form rolling nothing but MAYBE letting your enemy roll a saving throw.

D&D has three types of checks: attacks, saves and ability rolls. Not to mention spells. They all work slightly differently. A "natural 20" only matters in combat, for example; this isn't unified.

Also... there are very few games that resolve a 10-minute combat with a single roll, but many will resolve other 10-minute tasks with a single roll.

In practice, this means a 5th-level wizard can never, in a million years, beat a 5th-level fighter in a sword fight, but the fighter will beat the wizard's arcana check about 10% of the time (or something like that).

Many times, "unified mechanics" are a illusion.

With that said, the more truthful feeling of "I like to use the same dice for everything (except damage because we are used to that)" is okay too.

Also, IMO, in practice, a bell curve works best for skills, but it is very boring for combat. I noticed that playing lots of GURPS and D&D. Ultimately, I chose to play modern D&D as written, just distributing lots of automatic successes to circumvent the obvious flaws in using a d20 as outlined above.

The thing is that even the idea that in unified mechanics every single roll in the game has to be made in 100% the exact identical way 100% of the time is itself a fallacy. It places an extreme standard on what can be discussed as "unified mechanics" and I've never seen anyone argue in favor of that, other than people arguing against unified mechanics or making some criticism of them. So it's basically a sort of straw man and reductio ad absurdum, because it argues against something nobody is arguing in favor of and attempts to dismiss or at least find flaws in the method by appealing to extremes rather refute the mechanics on their merits.

And in all of the types of checks used in D&D, the resolution method is still basically identical (at least in 5e), and all of the differences are superficial and either D&D conceits (D&D has used different damage dice for weapons and critical hits for most of its history, and saving throws in response to spells, and critical skill rolls do exist in other games--the designers simply opted to not include them in D&D) or circumstantial differences that arise naturally in the situations they're implemented (you don't need to hack away at an enemy's HP or "life meter" or whatever in a crafting skill check--because they deal with completely different circumstances that have different end goals and obstacles). But because I'm not hacking away at an enemy's HP when making non-combat skill rolls I can't talk about how attack rolls and skill checks are rolled in 100% the same way anymore?

In D&D 3e they introduced the idea of handling all rolls involving some type of ability tests using a d20 + Modifier mechanic, but they used different methods to determine the modifier for different resolution rolls (combat vs saving throws vs skills) and kept weapon damage rolls, rather than ditching that staple of D&D in favor of automatically determining damage based on your attack roll result. Does that mean I can no longer recognize the elements of mechanical unification that are there compared to earlier D&D?

Even if you want to argue that unified mechanics exist only in degrees the elements of unification are still there.
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: Two Crows on January 06, 2021, 02:51:08 PM
Three thoughts:

1. A major advantage of "rules as guidelines" is dramatic pace at the table.  If a scene is meant to be slow and building, you can adapt the rules to match the scene.  Alternately, and more importantly, if the action is flying fast, things don't slow to a crawl (or stop entirely) if a rule can not be remembered.  No need to look it up or argue it, the pace keeps up.


2. Some game mechanics add a great deal of feel and flavor to the game itself.  Take 1st edition Deadlands as an example; the game used dice, cards, and poker chips.  Drawing poker hands and placing bets really added to the Old West feel.  When they switched to D20 (with it's "unified" mechanic), it was a completely different experience at the table.  IMO, the change was horrible.

3. In my view, the more clear and expansive the rules, the more the players will only select actions within those rules.  That isn't to say no one will ever try anything different, but it encourages less creativity simply by creating less resistance. 
Example: How often do players actually ask the DM about creating a new spell they have an idea for these days?  This used to be a fairly common occurence.

Please add my name to the group that feels "better rules" is a statement of opinion with no factual bearing on the discussion what-so-ever.  My definition of a "better rule" is a rule that makes the game more fun.

P.S. When did people start disagreeing over what the OSR was? Publishers trying to cash in by using the label on other product?  I'm seeing all sorts of stuff using that label now.

When it started, it was an attempt to get back to pre-3e D&D.  That was pretty much it.
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: Shasarak on January 06, 2021, 02:58:33 PM
Point #1
I had a very long thread on ENworld once about "why THAC0 rocks." I really do like it. While I can agree that ascending AC is more intuitive, there are some fundamental things that it does that ascending doesn't:
Bounded design -- AC 0 is around the natural maximum, while -10 is the magically enhanced maximum.
You can do the math once against a single foe (it's more intuitive to do so).
Designed so that GM can decide how "player facing" the mechanic is. (in 1e the attack tables were in the DMG!)

Frankly I find it easier with large groups of players and monsters, perhaps that is just because it encourages me to have all the info I need at hand, so I am not waiting for a player to tell me if the monster hit them, I already know.

My real point here is, assumptions that something is "obviously better" may just be overlooking somethings positive qualities.

Going up or going down does not change bounded design.

Thats not how maths works.

Technically true. But they can feel different. People sometimes suggest that subtraction is "harder" for instance.

Meanwhile, starting at 10 and going down to -10 feels more bounded than starting at 10 and going up to 30 (why not 40?). The first also has a self evident "center point" while it can be less obvious that a 20 is the center.

Math is math, but in games how you get there can have an impact on perceptions.

Rolling a d12 for a 50% chance  vs d100 vs flipping a coin has no meaningful difference, but it feels different at the table.

What are you talking about feeling?  If you convert AC -10 to AC 30 then you dont go up to 40 because you feel good or bad.  Its not a slippery slope, otherwise why stop at -10 AC when you can easily get lower then that.
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: Philotomy Jurament on January 06, 2021, 04:46:59 PM
P.S. When did people start disagreeing over what the OSR was?

Probably around 2007 or so.
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: Two Crows on January 06, 2021, 07:37:49 PM
P.S. When did people start disagreeing over what the OSR was?

Probably around 2007 or so.

Nah, I was still around back then.

It wasn't like this even in 2016.
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: EOTB on January 06, 2021, 08:34:39 PM
Trust philotomy - there are dozens of wrought discussions in many different places about what qualified, and what didn’t, for the term OSR - starting about 3 days after it was promoted
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: GeekyBugle on January 06, 2021, 08:48:18 PM
Aaahhh A good flame war, I missed those from my days in Linux forums...

This is something I'm having trouble understanding about people with a deific fondness for games that had rules but then you ignored them or made up your own. I won't lie and say that I haven't just fudged rules, or just rolled with whatever was happening to move the game along. But that was made on a foundation of rules I generally liked and could use as written most of the time. Because that was a product I paid for. Functional rules.

By your own admition you're guilty of that which you accuse others of, namelly not playing RAW.


When I hear some people reminisce about old school games, the fact that the rules were such vague and contradicting, unfinished, unrefined, clusterfuck is talked about with deep fondness. That somehow having bad rules, or non-existent rules made it better because if it was bad, then you can ignore them and make your own. Or just improv all the time.

So, everytime you have ignored, altered or otherwise houseruled a system it was because "the rules were such vague and contradicting, unfinished, unrefined, clusterfuck"?

So wouldn't the logical endpoint just be an improv night without any rules at all? If consistent rules and character-building gets in the way of the DM telling the story he wants, why have any rules at all? Why not just write up a short story with some people occasionally assisting with minor suggestions for individual characters?

Since we have established that you're guilty of the same sin wouldn't this also apply to you?

Fundamentally I believe everybody can have the fun they want. Really this is more conceptual confusion for me. Personally, I believe it's just nostalgia.

Nope, you believe some people are having wrongfun.
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: Arkansan on January 06, 2021, 08:53:23 PM
Trust philotomy - there are dozens of wrought discussions in many different places about what qualified, and what didn’t, for the term OSR - starting about 3 days after it was promoted

I recall fairly acrimonious debates about what was OSR at least as far back as 2010, which was when I became aware of it. Though a lot of it was confined to blogs, or threads on /tg/.
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: Thondor on January 07, 2021, 11:32:44 AM
Point #1
I had a very long thread on ENworld once about "why THAC0 rocks." I really do like it. While I can agree that ascending AC is more intuitive, there are some fundamental things that it does that ascending doesn't:
Bounded design -- AC 0 is around the natural maximum, while -10 is the magically enhanced maximum.
You can do the math once against a single foe (it's more intuitive to do so).
Designed so that GM can decide how "player facing" the mechanic is. (in 1e the attack tables were in the DMG!)

Frankly I find it easier with large groups of players and monsters, perhaps that is just because it encourages me to have all the info I need at hand, so I am not waiting for a player to tell me if the monster hit them, I already know.

My real point here is, assumptions that something is "obviously better" may just be overlooking somethings positive qualities.

Going up or going down does not change bounded design.

Thats not how maths works.

Technically true. But they can feel different. People sometimes suggest that subtraction is "harder" for instance.

Meanwhile, starting at 10 and going down to -10 feels more bounded than starting at 10 and going up to 30 (why not 40?). The first also has a self evident "center point" while it can be less obvious that a 20 is the center.

Math is math, but in games how you get there can have an impact on perceptions.

Rolling a d12 for a 50% chance  vs d100 vs flipping a coin has no meaningful difference, but it feels different at the table.

What are you talking about feeling?  If you convert AC -10 to AC 30 then you dont go up to 40 because you feel good or bad.  Its not a slippery slope, otherwise why stop at -10 AC when you can easily get lower then that.

Why not set your bounded design between 57 - 79 or 57 and 77 if you prefer to have a 20 point range. We can all just do the math right?

It is easier to intuit a range of 10 to -10 as absolute limits, because it mirrors itself and we use a base 10 number system.

I never said you'd can't bound your design between 10 and 30, rather that it is not as self-evident, or as self reinforcing.
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: Chris24601 on January 07, 2021, 12:04:01 PM
It is easier to intuit a range of 10 to -10 as absolute limits, because it mirrors itself and we use a base 10 number system.
Is 10 the actual upper limit? What about the poor fellow with Dex 3 (AC modifier +4) and no armor (AC 10)? Wouldn't they actually be AC 14?

AC 14 to -10 doesn't seem any more intuitive than AC 1-30 (because, yes, you can get ACs MUCH lower than 10... the range in 3e actually got down to -3... (i.e. base AC 10, -5 for stationary/0 Dex, -8 for colossal size).

What actually makes ascending AC more intuitive is that its always the target number, not part of the calculation. 1d20+mods vs. TN is super easy to explain and works regardless of where you place the limits on modifiers and target numbers.

By contrast... the formula with descending AC is THAC0 - AC score = target number for die roll + combat modifiers (because Strength, magic weapons and the like are listed as positive bonuses, not as negative THAC0 adjustments). There's a whole extra step; "determine target number, then roll and add bonuses, then compare result" relative to just "roll, add bonuses and compare to target number."

Frankly, the only way AC on the 14 to -10 scale approaches the simplicity of ascending AC is the "Everything is TN 20" version where the check is 1d20 + mods (where the target's AC is one of the mods) and if the total result is 20+ you hit and even that still has the added step of adding the target's AC each time.
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: Eric Diaz on January 07, 2021, 03:12:16 PM
One thing about "unified mechanics" is that it is a bit of a fallacy in current D&D.

Rolling d20+mods once to see who "wins" a skill contest is different than rolling d20+mods then 1d8+5 for damage, then rolling again until you run out of HP (or rolling initiative etc.), and also different form rolling nothing but MAYBE letting your enemy roll a saving throw.

D&D has three types of checks: attacks, saves and ability rolls. Not to mention spells. They all work slightly differently. A "natural 20" only matters in combat, for example; this isn't unified.

Also... there are very few games that resolve a 10-minute combat with a single roll, but many will resolve other 10-minute tasks with a single roll.

In practice, this means a 5th-level wizard can never, in a million years, beat a 5th-level fighter in a sword fight, but the fighter will beat the wizard's arcana check about 10% of the time (or something like that).

Many times, "unified mechanics" are a illusion.

With that said, the more truthful feeling of "I like to use the same dice for everything (except damage because we are used to that)" is okay too.

Also, IMO, in practice, a bell curve works best for skills, but it is very boring for combat. I noticed that playing lots of GURPS and D&D. Ultimately, I chose to play modern D&D as written, just distributing lots of automatic successes to circumvent the obvious flaws in using a d20 as outlined above.

The thing is that even the idea that in unified mechanics every single roll in the game has to be made in 100% the exact identical way 100% of the time is itself a fallacy. It places an extreme standard on what can be discussed as "unified mechanics" and I've never seen anyone argue in favor of that, other than people arguing against unified mechanics or making some criticism of them. So it's basically a sort of straw man and reductio ad absurdum, because it argues against something nobody is arguing in favor of and attempts to dismiss or at least find flaws in the method by appealing to extremes rather refute the mechanics on their merits.

And in all of the types of checks used in D&D, the resolution method is still basically identical (at least in 5e), and all of the differences are superficial and either D&D conceits (D&D has used different damage dice for weapons and critical hits for most of its history, and saving throws in response to spells, and critical skill rolls do exist in other games--the designers simply opted to not include them in D&D) or circumstantial differences that arise naturally in the situations they're implemented (you don't need to hack away at an enemy's HP or "life meter" or whatever in a crafting skill check--because they deal with completely different circumstances that have different end goals and obstacles). But because I'm not hacking away at an enemy's HP when making non-combat skill rolls I can't talk about how attack rolls and skill checks are rolled in 100% the same way anymore?

In D&D 3e they introduced the idea of handling all rolls involving some type of ability tests using a d20 + Modifier mechanic, but they used different methods to determine the modifier for different resolution rolls (combat vs saving throws vs skills) and kept weapon damage rolls, rather than ditching that staple of D&D in favor of automatically determining damage based on your attack roll result. Does that mean I can no longer recognize the elements of mechanical unification that are there compared to earlier D&D?

Even if you want to argue that unified mechanics exist only in degrees the elements of unification are still there.

I agree with most of what you're saying.

Would you agree that there are "degrees" of unification then?

On one hand, you've got OD&D - roll high, roll low, roll 2d6, roll 1d00, roll damage.

OTOH you've got WotC D&D - roll 1d20 for almost everything, but occasionally add bless, bard inspiration, roll damage, consider critical hits, etc.

Then you have games that are MORE EXTREME than modern D&D - like Robin Law's Heroquest, where everything actually uses d20s and no other dice are used. Or Fate, which uses nothing but fate dice.

My question is: do you think unified mechanics are always good, or are good in general but can be left aside for various reasons?

(such as "D&D has used this for most of its history", or "they deal with completely different circumstances that have different end goals and obstacle").

From your post, your answer seem to be, obviously, that they are good in general. I agree. But there are exceptions - and these exceptions deserve to be analyzed on their own merits.

I don't think "D&D always used damage die" is a great reason, but I see your point (I, personally, do not use damage dice in my game anymore, so in this sense my game is more "unified" than mainstream D&D in this regard).

Here is another obvious one: combat is completely different from skills, why should a skill be decided with a single d20 roll?

2d10 works best in practice (for example, the fighter beats the wizard in Arcana about 1% of the time instead of 10% of the time).

Again, in practice, I decide in favor of unified mechanics here too - but I would understand if someone decides otherwise becasue they want results to make more sense.

In short: "unified mechanics" (which I prefer to call "multipurpose mechanics") are also just a tool at your disposal. A tool I love, but not always the best tool for the job.

EDIT: BTW, here is a fun example from 5e: thirst and hunger are treated in different ways (for no discernible reason)... So, "unified mechanics" is not necessarily a top priority here, "using the d20" might be.
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: VisionStorm on January 07, 2021, 06:13:57 PM
One thing about "unified mechanics" is that it is a bit of a fallacy in current D&D.

Rolling d20+mods once to see who "wins" a skill contest is different than rolling d20+mods then 1d8+5 for damage, then rolling again until you run out of HP (or rolling initiative etc.), and also different form rolling nothing but MAYBE letting your enemy roll a saving throw.

D&D has three types of checks: attacks, saves and ability rolls. Not to mention spells. They all work slightly differently. A "natural 20" only matters in combat, for example; this isn't unified.

Also... there are very few games that resolve a 10-minute combat with a single roll, but many will resolve other 10-minute tasks with a single roll.

In practice, this means a 5th-level wizard can never, in a million years, beat a 5th-level fighter in a sword fight, but the fighter will beat the wizard's arcana check about 10% of the time (or something like that).

Many times, "unified mechanics" are a illusion.

With that said, the more truthful feeling of "I like to use the same dice for everything (except damage because we are used to that)" is okay too.

Also, IMO, in practice, a bell curve works best for skills, but it is very boring for combat. I noticed that playing lots of GURPS and D&D. Ultimately, I chose to play modern D&D as written, just distributing lots of automatic successes to circumvent the obvious flaws in using a d20 as outlined above.

The thing is that even the idea that in unified mechanics every single roll in the game has to be made in 100% the exact identical way 100% of the time is itself a fallacy. It places an extreme standard on what can be discussed as "unified mechanics" and I've never seen anyone argue in favor of that, other than people arguing against unified mechanics or making some criticism of them. So it's basically a sort of straw man and reductio ad absurdum, because it argues against something nobody is arguing in favor of and attempts to dismiss or at least find flaws in the method by appealing to extremes rather refute the mechanics on their merits.

And in all of the types of checks used in D&D, the resolution method is still basically identical (at least in 5e), and all of the differences are superficial and either D&D conceits (D&D has used different damage dice for weapons and critical hits for most of its history, and saving throws in response to spells, and critical skill rolls do exist in other games--the designers simply opted to not include them in D&D) or circumstantial differences that arise naturally in the situations they're implemented (you don't need to hack away at an enemy's HP or "life meter" or whatever in a crafting skill check--because they deal with completely different circumstances that have different end goals and obstacles). But because I'm not hacking away at an enemy's HP when making non-combat skill rolls I can't talk about how attack rolls and skill checks are rolled in 100% the same way anymore?

In D&D 3e they introduced the idea of handling all rolls involving some type of ability tests using a d20 + Modifier mechanic, but they used different methods to determine the modifier for different resolution rolls (combat vs saving throws vs skills) and kept weapon damage rolls, rather than ditching that staple of D&D in favor of automatically determining damage based on your attack roll result. Does that mean I can no longer recognize the elements of mechanical unification that are there compared to earlier D&D?

Even if you want to argue that unified mechanics exist only in degrees the elements of unification are still there.

I agree with most of what you're saying.

Would you agree that there are "degrees" of unification then?

On one hand, you've got OD&D - roll high, roll low, roll 2d6, roll 1d00, roll damage.

OTOH you've got WotC D&D - roll 1d20 for almost everything, but occasionally add bless, bard inspiration, roll damage, consider critical hits, etc.

Then you have games that are MORE EXTREME than modern D&D - like Robin Law's Heroquest, where everything actually uses d20s and no other dice are used. Or Fate, which uses nothing but fate dice.

My question is: do you think unified mechanics are always good, or are good in general but can be left aside for various reasons?

(such as "D&D has used this for most of its history", or "they deal with completely different circumstances that have different end goals and obstacle").

From your post, your answer seem to be, obviously, that they are good in general. I agree. But there are exceptions - and these exceptions deserve to be analyzed on their own merits.

I don't think "D&D always used damage die" is a great reason, but I see your point (I, personally, do not use damage dice in my game anymore, so in this sense my game is more "unified" than mainstream D&D in this regard).

Here is another obvious one: combat is completely different from skills, why should a skill be decided with a single d20 roll?

2d10 works best in practice (for example, the fighter beats the wizard in Arcana about 1% of the time instead of 10% of the time).

Again, in practice, I decide in favor of unified mechanics here too - but I would understand if someone decides otherwise becasue they want results to make more sense.

In short: "unified mechanics" (which I prefer to call "multipurpose mechanics") are also just a tool at your disposal. A tool I love, but not always the best tool for the job.

EDIT: BTW, here is a fun example from 5e: thirst and hunger are treated in different ways (for no discernible reason)... So, "unified mechanics" is not necessarily a top priority here, "using the d20" might be.

Yeah, I tend to think that unified mechanics are generally superior (particularly when handling action resolution), but design goals and the type of "feel" that you're trying to achieve in the system ultimately trumps their use. A lot of things in game design depend on what you're trying to achieve rather than applying certain mechanical elements prescriptively. Certain subsystems, such as damage, may not always work well with unified mechanics--particularly if you're going for a more D&D "feel" in combat--so you can certainly have a mix of unified core mechanics with variable mechanics for subsystems. Although, I can certainly think of effective ways of handling damage as an expression of your ability check, which would flow from unified mechanics and allow you to inflict damage proportional to how well you roll.

I'm not entirely sure combat needs to be handled differently from skills, though. I tend to think of combat as just another skill, and people with actual combat training, conditioning and experience tend to be more consistently good at landing or blocking a hit than someone who lacks ability in those areas. Though, I suppose that you could say misses (even from experienced combatants) and lucky hits (even when people have no combat training) tend to be more likely in combat than say, a skilled artist failing to draw a cat or an unskilled artist drawing a perfect kitty. But that could also be handled by gating the ability to perform certain tasks behind specific training, so that anyone could try to draw a stick figure that kinda sorta resembles a cat, but only a skilled artist would be able to draw one that looks good.

However, I would tend to use the same mechanic across the board to avoid confusion and streamline things, since telling someone that all action resolution is "roll 1d20+Mod", "3d6, roll under" or "a number of d6s equal to your ability", etc. is easier to explain than rolling out a different mechanic to handle different eventualities. And in the case of 1d20+Mod in particular, I would tend to use 1d20+Mod for all action resolution because I prefer the feel of the d20, and it has other advantages, like speed of play (vs adding up multiple dice).
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: Chris24601 on January 07, 2021, 06:31:10 PM
My question is: do you think unified mechanics are always good, or are good in general but can be left aside for various reasons?
I’m also in the camp of “unified mechanics are good in general, but best practices are best practices and sometimes best isn’t a unified element.”

For example, I very much prefer 4E’s unification of spell attacks and defenses to match weapon attacks instead of spells being “autohit” but with a roll to resist. That felt like a good use of unified mechanics. It also added flexibility to weapon attacks by allow certain moves to target Fort (ex. a blow that batters you right through your armor), Reflex (ex. bypasses armor through precision) or Will (ex. a feint) so it was a net gain.

By contrast, I think 4E’s saving throws (i.e. it’s duration mechanic) would have been better if they hadn’t used a d20 so they’d be less confused with actions. They were slightly better than 50% at 10+, but I think a 4+ on a d6 would have better associated saves with the “effect” half of powers (i.e. action checks are d20s, but damage and other effects from a hit or miss were rolled on variable dice... making the save/duration end rolls a d6 or d8 would better align it with the effects).
Title: Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
Post by: Philotomy Jurament on January 07, 2021, 06:48:52 PM
I'm not against unified mechanics, in general. For example, I think highly of Chaosium's BRP (which uses d% for everything, and where combat and weapons skill is just another skill, etc). I also enjoy I.C.E. RM2, which is also d100 based, and while it has classes (professions) and levels, they're used more as a matrix for determining skill costs and spending skill points than anything else.

With D&D, I haven't found unified mechanics to be beneficial, though. Not sure exactly why (I never had much urge to analyze it). Some of it may be that prefer a very class/level based D&D game. I don't use general skills or "non-weapon proficiencies" or any of that. With D&D, my "unified mechanic" is that the DM determines a probability and some dice are rolled to see how it goes. That can take various forms, of course, with some more defined than others, and I'm fine with that -- and I guess I even prefer it. I remember that one of my issues with C&C was the use of SIEGE engine for everything (other than combat), and how that, logically applied, created side-effects that I didn't like (and that undermined the class/level approach that I prefer).