TheRPGSite

I started playing D&D around 1980. At that time and all through the 80's and 90's, the original box set was only occasionally mentioned and never played. It was like the magna charta of gaming, a historical document of value but not something actively used.
 
I've read pdfs of OD&D. It's largely a jumbled mess. I'm not sure if my 12 year old self would have been hooked if I had to read white box instead of the clean power of Moldvay.
 
I'm not against old school play. Today, with retro clones and neo-old school games, there are more options than ever. So why the renaissance for OD&D? To me, it looks like pretentious adolation of an antique brand name. Is there something I'm missing?
 
I've played RC, Moldvay, AD&D, and several non-D&D old school games.  Don't try to sell me on old school, show me what OD&D has that the others don't.

Quote from: Nicephorus;247924I've played RC, Moldvay, AD&D, and several non-D&D old school games.  Don't try to sell me on old school, show me what OD&D has that the others don't.

OD&D 74, Holmes, BECMI, AD&D 1st are all variations of the same rule system yet have different feel and features.

OD&D 74 as the progenitor of the subsequent editions has two unique things that makes it stand out from its successors.

1) It use of the D6 for combat damage makes running encounters a lot simplifier. You need to record very little to run most monsters.  Subsequent editions add to the monster's abilities making running them more complex.

2) The utter lack of a skill system even a thief class make challenging the player not the character the default mode of play.

3) Most of the rules are written with a wide latitude for referee's interpretation. BECMI still has this to some degree but it also been cleaned up and clarified to a degree as well.


Everything else is because of the feel of how the classes, items, monster and spell combine. Either you like it, don't care, or dislike it.

The addition of the Greyhawk supplement will change OD&D into a proto AD&D and remove both points 1 and 2. It becomes mostly just a feel of the game issue.

The Renaissance isn't all about slavish worship of the old. A couple of good essays on old school gaming have made new fans. In addition some of us are trying to advance from the old school foundation into different directions from the current market. For example my own Points of Light.

As Estar says, OD&D, BX, BECMI, etc. are all pretty much the same game (though each has its own peculiarities).  Moldvay D&D is pretty much the OD&D box with a few key differences (e.g. no bizarre "Elf is either a Figher or M-U for this adventure," ability bonuses).

As the years go by, I've come to realize that I don't necessarily need big lists of skills, special case rules, character advantages and disadvantages, etc. for the games I run.  I've had just as much, if not more, fun role-playing personalities rather than making trait rolls, making rulings off the cuff rather than looking up rules in the book, etc.  And my players almost always have, too.

So with OD&D, you've got a ruleset that's about as bare-bones as possible.  You have rules for making your characters, rules for moving around, rules for what happens when a fight breaks out, and a list of baddies for the PCs to encounter.  Really, do you need any more than that from a rulebook?

Add to that the fact that, because OD&D is so minimalist, it's wide open for customizing, as well.

That said, my favorite D&D is Moldvay, but I can completely understand those who return to the white/woodgrain box well.

Quote from: estar;2479441) It use of the D6 for combat damage makes running encounters a lot simplifier. You need to record very little to run most monsters. Subsequent editions add to the monster's abilities making running them more complex.
 
2) The utter lack of a skill system even a thief class make challenging the player not the character the default mode of play.
 
3) Most of the rules are written with a wide latitude for referee's interpretation. BECMI still has this to some degree but it also been cleaned up and clarified to a degree as well.
 

For me 1) just feels too vanilla and 2) and 3) are present enough for in Moldvay Basic. RC is alright but it adds lots of special rules for skills, weapon specialization and other things.
 
I know there are clones of Basic and AD&D.  Is there one of OD&D that cleans up the writing?

QuoteI know there are clones of Basic and AD&D. Is there one of OD&D that cleans up the writing?

http://www.swordsandwizardry.com/

Quote from: Nicephorus;2479591) just feels too vanilla

Hence the reason why we have RPGs of every type of complexity and genre.

Quote from: Nicephorus;247924I started playing D&D around 1980. At that time and all through the 80's and 90's, the original box set was only occasionally mentioned and never played. It was like the magna charta of gaming, a historical document of value but not something actively used.
 
I've read pdfs of OD&D. It's largely a jumbled mess. I'm not sure if my 12 year old self would have been hooked if I had to read white box instead of the clean power of Moldvay.

I'm of the same feeling.  OD&D seems a lot more popular today than it was five years ago, let alone 20 years ago (when 2E was coming out).  When 2E was coming out, the vast majority of D&D players I knew were familiar with 1E and Basic, but there were no copies of OD&D floating about, no one playing the game, etc.

Then again, we're a long way from Michigan out here in Seattle, and given the limited runs of OD&D -- less than 100,000 copies were printed, and I'm being generous -- it may not have spread evenly.  It's hard to say.

I've since gotten a hold of the OD&D books (and then lost them again when my mom gave ALL of my gaming collection to Goodwill on accident in 1997) and I know that I wouldn't have understood the game at 10 the way I was able to understand the Moldvay Red Box (seriously, that book is the single best introduction to RPGs ever).  I definitely don't think it's superior in any sense, except perhaps in the sense that -- like RIFTS -- the rules are impenetrable and so vague as to give the game master incredible freedom to engage in illusionism (and that is not a dis on illusionism, of which I am a firm proponent).

I wonder if there is some desire to be more old school than old school behind the growth of interest in OD&D.  Here's my theory:

By 1997 Dungeons & Dragons was defined by the Second Edition of the game, with no support for other systems and little in the way of a meaningful back market.  D&D was in general decline due to competition from White Wolf and poor management by TSR. After the release of the Player's Options book, Second Edition is seen by most gamers as being completely broken (I disagree, but that's neither here nor there). Wizards buys the company.

In 2000, Wizards releases Third Edition to widespread popular acclaim.  WOTC is seen as having "saved" Dungeons & Dragons from the "ruin" that was 2E.  The OGL creates new possibilities for developers.

As WOTC milks the gaming market with revisions and splatbooks, the credibility the company gained with 3E's release begins to sour, much like George Bush squandered international goodwill after Spet. 11th.  Except a lot more trivial.

A group of developers -- Clark Peterson, Joseph Goodman, etc. -- begins cultivating a market of gamers who are increasingly dissatisfied with the direction of WOTC and nostalgic for the vision of D&D most of them were first exposed to, a vision of D&D informed by classic modules like Keep on the Borderlands, Tomb of Horrors, and Against the Giants.  The Old School movement begins in earnest.

Seeing the breaking of the market into WOTC devotees and Old School devotees, new developers seek to further capitalize on market break-ups and split off new theoretical markets of Older Than Old School players with the release of games like Castles & Crusades and OSRIC.

Thus I think the "resurgence" of OD&D is mostly manufactured, driven by designers who want to create new markets, and gamers who confuse being Old School with being Original Gangster want to distinguish themselves by being Older than Old School.  Thus, rather than holding up AD&D and Basic as the pinnacle of the game, they insist OD&D was the pinnacle of the game.

Good analysis, except that discounts the existence of things like Dragonsfoot (established 2002 I believe) and the fact that there are people who never stopped playing 1E, or 2E, (or OD&D for that matter) that never jumped aboard 3rd edition.

I climbed back aboard in 2003 when I discovered Dragonsfoot... for some reason, it never occurred to me to play old editions... I just gave up on D&D in 1994 or 1995 when the 2nd edition BS got too much...

Quote from: Nicephorus;247959For me 1) just feels too vanilla and 2) and 3) are present enough for in Moldvay Basic. RC is alright but it adds lots of special rules for skills, weapon specialization and other things.

Which is what it all comes down to in the end. A mater of taste. You don't understand the adulation OD&D is getting because it doesn't match your tastes. It does, however, appear to match the tastes of others. That's the explanation, right there.

BTW, I'm not saying it matches my tastes either.

-clash

Quote from: estar;247964Hence the reason why we have RPGs of every type of complexity and genre.

Bingo! :D

-clash

Actually, another good reason for OD&D... because it's the barest-bones of the D&D versions, if you're wanting to make changes to the system it's the easiest to use as a base, and you can still add whatever you might want from most of the other editions and it'll still work.

Quote from: Jackalope;248097Thus I think the "resurgence" of OD&D is mostly manufactured, driven by designers who want to create new markets, and gamers who confuse being Old School with being Original Gangster want to distinguish themselves by being Older than Old School.  Thus, rather than holding up AD&D and Basic as the pinnacle of the game, they insist OD&D was the pinnacle of the game.

I never stopped playing 2e and BECMI/Rules Cyclopedia games. I didn't even know 3e existed until about 2004. The retro-clones seem like a great way to keep up the support of the editions I never gave up on, and I'm sure there were people playing OD&D right the way through from 1974 to now.

A second point: what's wrong with discovering something old but good? I love 70s music. The production values, themes and songwriting seem way superior to those around these days. A personal subjective opinion, but not one that I hold just to be Original Gangster. You don't think it's possible to discover OD&D in 2008 the same way you can discover 10cc in 2008?

All I know is, everyone in my apartment complex is my bitch now that I'm Old School, yo.

Quote from: KenHR;248262All I know is, everyone in my apartment complex is my bitch now that I'm Old School, yo.

d two ohs before hos, muthafukka.

EDIT:  Yeah, boyyyyy, lookit mah sig.  Olde School, bitches.

I'm always down to represent for the O.G., but I have to prepare my next class. I'll try to come back later.

OD&D consisted not just in rules but in a set of play-practices which could be easily duplicated if desired in AD&D 1 and 2, Moldvay, Mentzer, and Holmes. While those games were in print OD&D players had no reason not to pick and choose the features of those games they liked, since those games were all, in a certain sense anyway, customizations of OD&D.

3rd and 4th edition D&D have in various ways - and this is not to knock them as games - jeapordized some of those play-practices. Both rules and play-text militate against them in some ways. I know that you can play a game very similar to the older versions of D&D in 3e, especially at lower levels, and for all I know you can get at least partway there in 4e, but there's a lot that's different too.

Among other things, the return to OD&D now is the return to a neutral framework within which many of the other pre-2000 approaches to D&D can be fit, unprejudicially. That framework didn't need to be explicitly endorsed, defended, and developed until it was driven underground in the context that has developed since the D&D brand moved to Seattle.

I'm happy to see lots of different games and let a thousand flowers blossom, but many old approaches have been left aside by the current big games. Hence the return. There are some important things that some people will want a reminder of.

What these are in detail is the longer post I don't have time for now. I'll try to come back and say more...

Quote from: JimLotFP;248252Actually, another good reason for OD&D... because it's the barest-bones of the D&D versions, if you're wanting to make changes to the system it's the easiest to use as a base, and you can still add whatever you might want from most of the other editions and it'll still work.

Really? I would say that Holmes or Moldvay/Cook is the baseline for bare-bonesness, especially since those version don't have the fiddly rules about choosing whether the elf is a fighter or a magic-user session. Granted, they have thieves, but dropping them requires precisely zero effort. And they're a little more nicely arranged than OD&D, which is handy for chopping-and-changing purposes.

Quote from: StormBringer;248267d two ohs before hos, muthafukka.

I had to sig that.

-=Grim=-

Quote from: Nicephorus;247924So why the renaissance for OD&D? To me, it looks like pretentious adolation of an antique brand name. Is there something I'm missing?

I think everyone will tell you this happens. I also think everyone will tell you that's not why they do it. Only some of them will be right.

It seems like we could start a "Why ____?" thread for any RPG in existence, really.

Like, do you get constant "Why" questions on a general RPG board (a board dedicated to SR doesn't count) when you say you're playing an older version of Shadowrun?

Some folks like the ruleset, they like the style of play.  Other people haven't experienced the style of game that's called "old school" and want to try for themselves.  That doesn't deserve any kind of insinuation that they're being pretentious or some form of wannabe.

Though if someone really _is_ getting into "retro gaming" in order to be seen as cool by a bunch of people on the internet, they deserve to be beaten up.

Quote from: KenHR;248424Like, do you get constant "Why" questions on a general RPG board (a board dedicated to SR doesn't count) when you say you're playing an older version of Shadowrun?

Umm (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=248329&postcount=7). :D

edit: As for accusations of pretentiousness, I base them on my experiences with the people who play OD&D and its derivations, not on the simple fact of playing an earlier version of some game. I don't play SR4 or D&D 4e or ED2, and I don't think it's because I'm pretentious. But when questions come up about these games, you really do see people crawling over each other to wave their hands and say, "I'm playing a version earlier and even less polished and sensical than this other guy!"

I should've looked before posting...heh.

No one called Gabriel pretentious or a wannabe for it, however.

Well, I hit that issue in my ninja edit.

So you did.

And, you know, thinking about it...I can see where you're coming from.  Especially when you have message boards and blogs devoted to the older editions quibbling over whether minis are "old school" or debating the merits of amateurish art (I loves me the Erol Otus, but those awful Bell illos from the original edition are blech).

However...I can see where those folks are coming from, too.  A lot of "old school" proponents have been playing that way for years (I've found two groups around here who were unaware that there'd been a 3e, much less 3.5 and 4.0) and found their style of play denigrated and called immature, stupid or worse for a long time.  So I think a bit of it is that pride people who are marginalized in whatever niche or walk of life have when they find others with the same mindset.

Not that any of the above excuses the behavior on either side.

Quote from: KenHR;248445A lot of "old school" proponents have been playing that way for years (I've found two groups around here who were unaware that there'd been a 3e, much less 3.5 and 4.0) and found their style of play denigrated and called immature, stupid or worse for a long time.

That's got to be a bitch. It's like being a cop: every time anyone ever has a bad experience with a cop, they bitch about all cops, and you're dragged into it by association; worse, you hate bad cops even more than they do! So I think calls of "guilt by association" need to be very very careful.

Quote from: Engine;248449That's got to be a bitch. It's like being a cop: every time anyone ever has a bad experience with a cop, they bitch about all cops, and you're dragged into it by association; worse, you hate bad cops even more than they do! So I think calls of "guilt by association" need to be very very careful.

That's the phenomenon, yes, though I'm willing to bet it's not quite as severe as what I imagine you and Serious Paul go through with the anti-cop faction.

I do have to say I have immense respect for police, by the way.  You and Paul will always have my respect!

Quote from: KenHR;248464I do have to say I have immense respect for police, by the way.  You and Paul will always have my respect!

That's what I always tell cops...

-clash

Quote from: KenHR;248464I do have to say I have immense respect for police, by the way.  You and Paul will always have my respect!

Awesome, thanks! Except I'm not a cop. I'm kind of the opposite of a cop. But Paul deserves mad respect [and a little pity] for taking the sort of jobs - Marine, then guard at an omnimax prison - none of us want to, so that the rest of us don't have to. And for keeping people like me off the streets.

Quote from: flyingmice;248472That's what I always tell cops...

-clash

Ha!

Seriously, before I got my job here, I was seriously considering taking the state police exam and all that.  Only there was a hiring freeze, and by the time it was scheduled to be lifted, I'd have been too old.

Quote from: Engine;248476Awesome, thanks! Except I'm not a cop. I'm kind of the opposite of a cop. But Paul deserves mad respect [and a little pity] for taking the sort of jobs - Marine, then guard at an omnimax prison - none of us want to, so that the rest of us don't have to. And for keeping people like me off the streets.

Ah, damn, I thought you were both in law enforcement.

Well, 'nuff respec' to Paul.

Quote from: Calithena;248330OD&D consisted not just in rules but in a set of play-practices which could be easily duplicated if desired in AD&D 1 and 2, Moldvay, Mentzer, and Holmes. ...

3rd and 4th edition D&D have in various ways - and this is not to knock them as games - jeapordized some of those play-practices. Both rules and play-text militate against them in some ways. I know that you can play a game very similar to the older versions of D&D in 3e, especially at lower levels, and for all I know you can get at least partway there in 4e, but there's a lot that's different too.

Among other things, the return to OD&D now is the return to a neutral framework within which many of the other pre-2000 approaches to D&D can be fit, unprejudicially.

Here are three very good points about the appeal of OD&D (and old school gaming in general). On point two, it matches my experiences. Basically, what I wanted from 3e was "AD&D with better mechanics and a return to demons, devils, dungeons and half-orc assassins", and on the lower levels, 3e mostly delivered. It was later that I bumped into issues where the system revealed itself to be something different - still good, but not exactly what I had in mind. Hence, from "old school as a play style", I proceeded to "old school in system". I did not make the leap to really playing OD&D or 1e; I run something that's more d20 light meets C&C meets sword&sorcery/weird fantasy than canonical Gygaxian old school.

Jackalope's point about the "market-driven" nature of old school is at odds with what really happened. While Necromancer delivered 3rd edition rules, 1st edition feel and was arguably a seminal influence, the majority of today's old school community was created bottom-up. Dragonsfoot, for example, mostly attracted people who did not like 3rd edition for whatever reason and decided to make themselves heard. Development has been, and is more about communities than market; with OSRIC and especially the interest in OD&D, it is entirely about a community of like-minded hobbyists and little more. Small-press products selling 50 to 300 copies is not a market, although it's nice for a hobby.

Quote from: Nicephorus;247959For me 1) just feels too vanilla and 2) and 3) are present enough for in Moldvay Basic.

Not sure what 'present enough' means, but 1) [d6 weapon damage] is in Moldvay Basic as well.

The magnificent artwork.

(http://www.apolitical.info/efreet.jpg)

Quote from: GrimJesta;248413I had to sig that.

-=Grim=-

w00t!

Quote from: FASERIP;248581Not sure what 'present enough' means, but 1) [d6 weapon damage] is in Moldvay Basic as well.

Present enough means that the rules are simple enough to allow for quick judgements and addons. There are thief skills but no other skills in early basic so it was common to do things like "my character would know how to do that"  then the DM would ask for a description of what they want to do and eitehr allow it, disallow it, or ask for a die roll.
 
D6 weapon damage was optional in Moldvay, the weapon lists presented different damages for weapons. The monsters also have a variety of damage dice.

Quote from: Age of Fable;248586The magnificent artwork.

(http://www.apolitical.info/efreet.jpg)

So, a 60's stoner with tie on horns is the terror of the Elemental Plane of Fire?

:)

When my brother saw that efreet picture, he said it looked like me ca. 2004.

No comment. :D

Quote from: Nicephorus;248607D6 weapon damage was optional in Moldvay, the weapon lists presented different damages for weapons. The monsters also have a variety of damage dice.

Actually, it was the other way around.  Variable weapon damage was optional.

Not that I ever knew anyone who did d6 weapon damage, but still...

These days I'm more open to trying straight d6 damage along with to-hit modifiers for armor and such ala AD&D or the old Greyhawk book, but it seemed really stupid when I was a kid.

Editor to illustrator:  "EFREET!  I said EF-REET, not effete!!"

Illustrator: "oh....what's an efreet?"

Editor, looks at deadline on calendar "oh...just put some horns on it"


*I'm not the first to make that joke, but it's still freaking funny, and I very much believe that could have been exactly what happened.  I think most campaigns would benefit from more monsters wearing turtlenecks.

Quote from: Melan;248610When my brother saw that efreet picture, he said it looked like me ca. 2004.

No comment. :D

His only attack is a verbal spell:

Woman!  Wo-MAN!
Wo-wo-wo-MAN!

I play OD&D because it serves as the fundamental baseline for traditional-style D&D while offering me a lot of freedom to make it "my D&D."  It suits my style of play and my preferred approach.  If you start with the three brown books,  you're starting fresh, without any of the later buildup that took D&D in one direction or another (e.g. no skills, etc).  I enjoy examining how the game developed, and maybe taking it a different direction.  Lastly, there are quite a few distinctives in OD&D, like the all d6 hit dice, or the way magic swords work, or the bare bones spell descriptions, or the way magical protection doesn't affect AC, et cetera.  It's been fun and interesting finding those and experimenting with them.

I don't think OD&D is an ideal system for someone learning the game.  However, if you've been playing for years, and you like traditional D&D and its style of play, then OD&D is a great system; you can bring all that experience to the table and exercise it in a fun way, making the game your own while still remaining firmly grounded in D&D traditions.  (Indeed, your greatest difficulty will be to shed your preconceptions about D&D and its rules, because OD&D is often subtly different.)  I see OD&D as a fantastic "do-it-yourself hobbyist D&Der" system.

See the link in my sig for more of my thoughts on OD&D.

OD&D doesn't have skills, correct? How does that work?

Quote from: Engine;248698OD&D doesn't have skills, correct? How does that work?

Player: My fighty guy grew up in the woods.  Can I track the orc band?

DM: Sure.  Umm...they marched through this area a day ago and there's some snow on the ground.  [Choose from these three or make up your own: I'll give you an 80% chance/Roll WIS or less on 3d6/You did it.]

Okay, so what if you've two characters who both grew up in the woods: they both know how to track, fine, but they both have an 80 percent chance to succeed/both have the same chance to succeed if they've the same wisdom/both succeed? What about individual variation? What about someone who grew up in the woods but didn't learn to track?

I guess it's just odd to me, handwaving or fiating what the character knows how to do, because I cut my teeth on Shadowrun, where "what you know how to do" is something that profoundly effects the differences between you and some other dude.

Quote from: KenHR;248699Player: My fighty guy grew up in the woods. Can I track the orc band?
 
DM: Sure. Umm...they marched through this area a day ago and there's some snow on the ground. [Choose from these three or make up your own: I'll give you an 80% chance/Roll WIS or less on 3d6/You did it.]

I Think that's how most groups handled things until the late 80's in all versions of D&D to that point; basic and 1e (until addon books) didn't have skills either. DMs made judgements based on class, background, ability scores and how well the player could describe their plan. It works well if you're used to it and it fits your style. It makes things less on character build and more on trying to think as if you're in your character's shoes.

Quote from: Engine;248701What about individual variation? What about someone who grew up in the woods but didn't learn to track?
 
I guess it's just odd to me, handwaving or fiating what the character knows how to do, because I cut my teeth on Shadowrun, where "what you know how to do" is something that profoundly effects the differences between you and some other dude.

The details of how it's handled are hard to describe as it was handled differently by every DM. No two early D&D tables were exactly alike in their interpretations of rules and sets of house rules.
 
Aspects of 3e can be seen as listening to those who didn't like the lack of clarity; rules are provided for almost everything. DMs don't judge how hard it is to cut a rope, they look up it's hardness and hp. It's more consistent and makes it easier on new DMs and gives players a degree of protection from bad DMs. But it also makes it more of a standard game and less of a game of imagination. It depends on what someone is into.
 
But some aspects of what you know how to do have always been hardwired into D&D through classes- who can use what armor and weapons, who knows about what kind of magic, etc.  If you don't have classes, you need something else to set baseline assumptions.

Quote from: Engine;248701Okay, so what if you've two characters who both grew up in the woods: they both know how to track, fine, but they both have an 80 percent chance to succeed/both have the same chance to succeed if they've the same wisdom/both succeed? What about individual variation? What about someone who grew up in the woods but didn't learn to track?

I guess it's just odd to me, handwaving or fiating what the character knows how to do, because I cut my teeth on Shadowrun, where "what you know how to do" is something that profoundly effects the differences between you and some other dude.

It's part considering background/situation, part role-playing, part how the player describes what he's doing, part how well the player is able to make his case, etc.

Individual variation can still exist.  Honestly, it's never come up as a problem.  My players have always made distinctive characters in older versions of D&D without needing skill lists, benefits, drawbacks, feats, etc.  Sometimes I like games with lists of those things (I heart RoleMaster, for instance), but for the games I like to run now, they honestly get in the way.

EDIT: Nicephorus said it all way better than I just did.

Quote from: Engine;248701Okay, so what if you've two characters who both grew up in the woods: they both know how to track, fine, but they both have an 80 percent chance to succeed/both have the same chance to succeed if they've the same wisdom/both succeed? What about individual variation? What about someone who grew up in the woods but didn't learn to track?

I guess it's just odd to me, handwaving or fiating what the character knows how to do, because I cut my teeth on Shadowrun, where "what you know how to do" is something that profoundly effects the differences between you and some other dude.

If you haven't read it yet, check out The Old School Primer (http://www.mediafire.com/file/m7kavmhcyj5/Old%20School%20Primer.pdf).  Not written by me, but a good insight into the Olde School mentality.

Quote from: StormBringer;248728If you haven't read it yet, check out The Old School Primer (http://www.mediafire.com/file/m7kavmhcyj5/Old%20School%20Primer.pdf).  Not written by me, but a good insight into the Olde School mentality.

Pretty good but it makes sound like modern games don't use most of the same tactics and techniques, exaggerating the difference.  Across all games (not just D&D variants), I see a mix of what it describes as old and modern, with game and groups varying slightly in the exact mix.  In D20, situational modifiers for good ideas or tactics are common.

Quote from: Nicephorus;248750Pretty good but it makes sound like modern games don't use most of the same tactics and techniques, exaggerating the difference.  Across all games (not just D&D variants), I see a mix of what it describes as old and modern, with game and groups varying slightly in the exact mix.  In D20, situational modifiers for good ideas or tactics are common.

Except the old games didn't have situational modifiers, because there weren't any skill checks to modify.  Whatever plans you came up with generally had to stand or fall on their own.  Some of the techniques may be similar, but the application was very different.

Quote from: StormBringer;248797Except the old games didn't have situational modifiers, because there weren't any skill checks to modify.

"Muddy ground, -2 to hit."

"+4 for attacking from cover and uphill."

It's a bit like rocket science.

Quote from: droog;248805"Muddy ground, -2 to hit."

"+4 for attacking from cover and uphill."

It's a bit like rocket science.

Well, if the extent of your understanding is modifying 'to hit' rolls, I'm sure it must seem that way.

Quote from: Engine;248698OD&D doesn't have skills, correct? How does that work?

The smoothest way I ever found was "Roll under an appropriate stat on a d20" with modifiers based on clever or appropriate description or ideas. It made the switch to d20 fairly painless. I prefer a d20 to 3d6 because even if a person has a stat of 18 or 19, they still have a small chance of failing.

Quote from: StormBringer;248847Well, if the extent of your understanding is modifying 'to hit' rolls, I'm sure it must seem that way.

Don't teach your grandma to suck eggs.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;248851The smoothest way I ever found was "Roll under an appropriate stat on a d20" with modifiers based on clever or appropriate description or ideas. It made the switch to d20 fairly painless.

This is exactly what I was talking about.  Making a skill roll with the difficulty dependent on the task and the details of the character plan and doing the same thing with attribute rolls comes out fairly similar.

Quote from: Nicephorus;248750Pretty good but it makes sound like modern games don't use most of the same tactics and techniques, exaggerating the difference.  Across all games (not just D&D variants), I see a mix of what it describes as old and modern, with game and groups varying slightly in the exact mix.  In D20, situational modifiers for good ideas or tactics are common.

Yeah - I like what the 'Old-School Primer' is talking about, but I think it might be more accurately described as 'rules-light gaming' rather than 'old-school gaming'.

Quote from: StormBringer;248797Except the old games didn't have situational modifiers, because there weren't any skill checks to modify.  Whatever plans you came up with generally had to stand or fall on their own.  Some of the techniques may be similar, but the application was very different.

Player: "I climb the tree."

DM: "Alright. It's raining out and it is dark, but since there's a lot of branches you make the Dex check at -1."

Player: "When I get to the top I want to leap to the other tree."

DM: "Um... yea. -6 to your Dex check. That's a far leap."

Situational checks have been a part of gaming for a long time.

-=Grim=-

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;248851The smoothest way I ever found was "Roll under an appropriate stat on a d20" with modifiers based on clever or appropriate description or ideas. It made the switch to d20 fairly painless. I prefer a d20 to 3d6 because even if a person has a stat of 18 or 19, they still have a small chance of failing.

I like rolling varying d6s based on difficulty:

1d6 Simple
2d6 Easy
3d6 Medium
4d6 Hard
5d6 V Hard
6d6 Extremely Hard
etc.

I like it better than just a straight d20.

Then again, I also like rolling 3d6 in order for character generation, too, so take that as you will.

Quote from: GrimJesta;248899Situational checks have been a part of gaming for a long time.

But apparently not in Ye Olde Schoole.

Quote from: GrimJesta;248899Player: "I climb the tree."

DM: "Alright. It's raining out and it is dark, but since there's a lot of branches you make the Dex check at -1."

Player: "When I get to the top I want to leap to the other tree."

DM: "Um... yea. -6 to your Dex check. That's a far leap."

Situational checks have been a part of gaming for a long time.

-=Grim=-

That's exactly how I ran stuff for 20 years.

Well, some skills came in with 2E, but they didn't cover all that much.

-clash

Another out of character reason for going with OD&D:

The people who play it, or at least those of them who are active online, are very nice, approachable, and enthusiastic.  While they have opinions about what they like and don't like in their games, since I got put onto the online OD&D "scene" I've yet to encounter the kind of clickishness, flaming, and edition wars that I've seen with fans of every other edition from AD&D up to 4e.  In short, the OD&D fans I've met online have all been mellow, fun, dudes.

FUCK YOU YOU FUCKING JERK!

Did that work? Did I ruin it for you? Huh? No? SHIT! I fail again...

-=Grim=-

Quote from: GrimJesta;248899Player: "I climb the tree."

DM: "Alright. It's raining out and it is dark, but since there's a lot of branches you make the Dex check at -1."

Player: "When I get to the top I want to leap to the other tree."

DM: "Um... yea. -6 to your Dex check. That's a far leap."

Situational checks have been a part of gaming for a long time.

-=Grim=-

I never said they weren't, and your example is much closer to what the link I provided has in mind.  There were a few standard situations that usually called for an ability check, like keeping one's footing, but usually it was the plan that had to pass muster.  And there were no modifiers to "I turn the sconce above the fireplace".

Quote from: wulfgar;248924The people who play it, or at least those of them who are active online, are very nice, approachable, and enthusiastic.

I've noticed that on the whole in this thread.  
 
Part of what turned me off of Dragonsfoot was the 3tard attitude with ignorance fueled hate.  But I think they are mostly AD&D players.

Quote from: droog;248854Don't teach your grandma to suck eggs.

Ah, the oblique references and pseudo-cryptic responses.  I have a feeling Droog is going to start arguing from an incredibly narrow definition again.

I find it telling that the only two examples you provided of this ubiquitous level of 'situational modifier' are combat rolls.

Quote from: StormBringer;248935I find it telling that the only two examples you provided of this ubiquitous level of 'situational modifier' are combat rolls.

At least I didn't have to ask.

It is certainly a good way to rack up 3,839 posts. Well, at least droog deserves credit for not descending into long-winded bloviation: his comments are irrelevant, but thankfully short enough to waste little time while scrolling through them.

Aw, shucks.

Quote from: Melan;248954It is certainly a good way to rack up 3,839 posts. Well, at least droog deserves credit for not descending into long-winded bloviation: his comments are irrelevant, but thankfully short enough to waste little time while scrolling through them.

Very true.  Perhaps a Chatty Thread of Doom is in order.

Quote from: Nicephorus;248750Pretty good but it makes sound like modern games don't use most of the same tactics and techniques, exaggerating the difference.  Across all games (not just D&D variants), I see a mix of what it describes as old and modern, with game and groups varying slightly in the exact mix.  In D20, situational modifiers for good ideas or tactics are common.

I may have misunderstood what you were talking about here.  One of the major differences, which I thought you were referring to with 'situational modifiers', is in regards to skill checks and such.  2nd edition introduced skills in the form of non-weapon proficiencies, but it was an optional system that came after the secondary skills section, which was also optional.  I understand it was used commonly enough that many may not have realized it was an optional sub-system.

In the very earliest days, there wasn't even a thief class, so pretty much anything that wasn't trying to kill your party outright was a situation you had to puzzle out in your head or talk your way through.  Detecting traps was what you did with a 10ft pole, not your d10.  Naturally, after the Greyhawk supplement, the thief was a work in progress, but was the first class to really introduce the idea of 'skills' in later editions.

The situational modifiers that I remember were things like 'it's dark' or 'you hear a faint nibbling of cheese'.  They modified how we perceived the situation, and not always for the better.

Many times, the results of the thief skills were pretty vague anyway, only useful to find out if something was certain.  Hear Noise rolls usually got the 'faint nibbling of cheese' result, which was table shorthand for 'empty room'.  Critical to this line of thinking, of course, is remembering that undead don't make noise.  The room could have been packed with skeletons and zombies, and we wouldn't have known until we opened the door.  So, if there were slumbering orcs, we probably would have known.  Possibly not, though.  

Perhaps, then, the real issue were the absolutes.  The undead didn't move quietly, DC35 to hear.  They moved with no noise whatsoever.  Your 100th level Vargr thief, Swipy McHearsalot, isn't going to hear them any more or less often than 1st level Cottonhead Deafington.  Now, an individual DM might say "Silent skeletons?  Preposterous!  Bone scraping on rock makes plenty of noise."  But the default was the absolute silence.

Mea culpa if I misunderstood what you meant.  I was confused by the 'situational modifiers' you mentioned, because those only come up for my frame of reference in the context of skills and skill checks.

Quote from: KenHR;248901I like rolling varying d6s based on difficulty:

1d6 Simple
2d6 Easy
3d6 Medium
4d6 Hard
5d6 V Hard
6d6 Extremely Hard
etc.

I like it better than just a straight d20.

Then again, I also like rolling 3d6 in order for character generation, too, so take that as you will.

When I first started playing RPGs, I didn't have dice (nor did my friends), so we had to use a combination of chits and those paper fortune teller things to provide random numbers in the appropriate range. d20 was the biggest size of die we needed, so we tended to use it as a default size because it meant we didn't have to sort out the numbers from one another. This stuck after I finally got dice (around age 11), and I still favour simple d20 rolls for it.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;249136When I first started playing RPGs, I didn't have dice (nor did my friends), so we had to use a combination of chits and those paper fortune teller things to provide random numbers in the appropriate range. d20 was the biggest size of die we needed, so we tended to use it as a default size because it meant we didn't have to sort out the numbers from one another. This stuck after I finally got dice (around age 11), and I still favour simple d20 rolls for it.

That's interesting.  I wonder if others who used chits did the same; it seems like a pragmatic solution.

btw, your sig...do you play Dwarf Fortress?  I swear I read that on the game's message board once, and it seems to fit in with how the Elves behave in that game.

Quote from: wulfgar;248924Another out of character reason for going with OD&D:

The people who play it, or at least those of them who are active online, are very nice, approachable, and enthusiastic.  While they have opinions about what they like and don't like in their games, since I got put onto the online OD&D "scene" I've yet to encounter the kind of clickishness, flaming, and edition wars that I've seen with fans of every other edition from AD&D up to 4e.  In short, the OD&D fans I've met online have all been mellow, fun, dudes.

Newsflash: Fanboy says his fandom is cool, all others are assholes.  Story at 11.

I think B/X when I think OD&D.   The white box rules were more unrefined, but there is a lot of creative power in that raw text.   From a creative standpoint, looking at the white box is your origin point for making your next D&D campaign is excellent because you are drinking from the first well.

BTW, I run D&D games where all weapons do D6 plus their Attack bonus (including STR bonus).   The result is the players make weapon choices based on other qualities of the weapon.   Suddenly, its not about the die size, but about ease of concealment, usefulness as a tool, smashing ability and social appearance.

Quote from: KenHR;249140That's interesting.  I wonder if others who used chits did the same; it seems like a pragmatic solution.

btw, your sig...do you play Dwarf Fortress?  I swear I read that on the game's message board once, and it seems to fit in with how the Elves behave in that game.

It's from 4chan /tg board. 4chan has a huge community of Dwarf Fortress players, and it's a great quote, so I wouldn't be surprised if someone reposted it from the original thread.

Morale is a pretty solid guideline for the DM to determine how steady the opposition or henchmen are, for one thing, and a critical tactic for parties that are beat up and likely won't survive an entire fight.

In B/X, for example, monsters are given a morale score right in the stat block, modified by certain conditions.  Once the players figure out those conditions, it is a matter of triggering them to increase your chance of surviving the dozen or so orcs that waylaid your party on the way back to town.  Especially when the fighter is down to half hit points, the cleric is unconcious, the magic-user has two spells left, and the thief is out of arrows.  You need to hit the leader, and hit them hard, preferably with magic.

Conversely, if you want your henchmen to stick around, you will need to ply them with a bit more than monthly pay and a half share of treasure.  The morale modifiers apply to them as well.  The last thing you need when you are beset on all sides is for your underpaid and battered henchmen to turn tail, dropping the balance from 1:1 to 3:1 against.

Morale adds a further texture to the rich tapestry of combat, and helps remove some of the burden from the DM.  Instead of having even the lowliest goblins fight to the death on all occasions, there are reasonable guidelines regarding behaviour during combat and more importantly, if your party plans well, before the battle is even joined.

all burn

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;249222It's from 4chan /tg board. 4chan has a huge community of Dwarf Fortress players, and it's a great quote, so I wouldn't be surprised if someone reposted it from the original thread.

Ah yes, Dorf Fortress. I think you could port the random world gen from a saved game of Dwarf Fortress and plop it right into OD&D for a complete campaign, including gods, ages and kingdoms. Rampaging elephants, wood mafia elfs, feral cats, lava channels, and crazy burning dorfs.

Start with Boatmurdered. (http://fromearth.net/LetsPlay/Boatmurdered/) The intro and Thread 2's Update 1 are good places to start from. Thread 1's Update 11 is when it really started hitting the fan.

QuoteThis is one of those moments that makes Boatmurdered what it is. Extermination of armies, gruesome engravings, and insane superpowered dwarf-wizards gone on a mad rampage while ON FIRE.
THIS IS BOATMURDERED!

(http://fromearth.net/LetsPlay/Boatmurdered/Thread%202/Update%2024/boatmurdered.jpg)

I've been thinking of using my current fortress for a D&D dungeon...it's got an interesting layout.

Some of the traps, contraptions and buildings more enterprising players have come up with have been inspiring as well.