This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Author Topic: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?  (Read 10031 times)

SHARK

  • The Great Shark Hope
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5048
Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
« Reply #60 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
"It is the Marine Corps that will strip away the façade so easily confused with self. It is the Corps that will offer the pain needed to buy the truth. And at last, each will own the privilege of looking inside himself  to discover what truly resides there. Comfort is an illusion. A false security b

VisionStorm

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2184
Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
« Reply #61 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.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2021, 08:04:39 AM by VisionStorm »

Steven Mitchell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 3772
Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
« Reply #62 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.

Abraxus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2435
Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
« Reply #63 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.

Eric Diaz

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1115
    • http://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com.br/
Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
« Reply #64 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).
« Last Edit: January 04, 2021, 11:13:39 AM by Eric Diaz »
Chaos Factory Books  - Dark fantasy RPGs and more!

Methods & Madness - my  D&D 5e / Old School / Game design blog.

Thondor

  • Superhero
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 243
    • https://www.composedreamgames.com
Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
« Reply #65 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.


Chris24601

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • C
  • Posts: 3326
Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
« Reply #66 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).

Steven Mitchell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 3772
Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
« Reply #67 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.

VisionStorm

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2184
Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
« Reply #68 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.

Two Crows

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 95
Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
« Reply #69 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.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2021, 04:29:58 PM by Two Crows »
If I stop replying, it either means I've lost interest in the topic or think further replies are pointless.  I don't need the last word, it's all yours.

EOTB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1189
Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
« Reply #70 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.
A framework for generating local politics

https://mewe.com/join/osric A MeWe OSRIC group - find an online game; share a monster, class, or spell; give input on what you'd like for new OSRIC products.  Just don't 1) talk religion/politics, or 2) be a Richard

Slipshot762

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • S
  • Posts: 480
Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
« Reply #71 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.

finarvyn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1646
Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
« Reply #72 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
Marv / Finarvyn
Kingmaker of Amber
I'm pretty much responsible for the S&W WB rules.
Amber Diceless Player since 1993
OD&D Player since 1975

finarvyn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1646
Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
« Reply #73 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. :(
Marv / Finarvyn
Kingmaker of Amber
I'm pretty much responsible for the S&W WB rules.
Amber Diceless Player since 1993
OD&D Player since 1975

Steven Mitchell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 3772
Re: OD&D: Why have rules at all if you want to ignore them?
« Reply #74 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