OD&D and context

[thedungeondelver]

What, if anything, have any of you OD&D tinkerers done to expand your OD&D gameplay? there's a point at which you cross the rubicon and you are playing AD&D, or Holmes Basic, or Cook Basic, or Mentzer Basic, or RC Basic...is there a way to "keep it real" without going in any of those directions? Do you have to utterly divorce yourself from anything other than the 3LBBs ?

[Dagger]

Are you a mind reader? I've been taking a serious look at running OD&D for my Super Bowl game and I asked myself the same question. I've never run it before! I did a lot of Basic in my younger days, though.

I would imagine it's hard to keep it real because you can't remove what came after from your psyche. I suppose you would have to do your best to approach it with a fresh mindset and not look to the rules that came afterwards for answers. At least that's what I plan to do if I run it for the SB.

[SemajTheSilent]

Nah, I think the efreet is out of the bottle on that one.

[Falconer]

Yeah, pretty much. IMO, if you’re going to run OD&D, you want to deliberately go a different direction than AD&D took it, because AD&D does AD&D best. I admit now that I’ve found the idea of going a non-AD&D route with OD&D to be way more alluring in theory rather than in practice. AD&D just happens to be a hell of a fun game, and I have neither the talent nor the desire to top it. Oh, occasionally, I get excited with the idea of running this or that established world—Middle-earth, for example; right now it’s Star Trek—and for those I would use OD&D as the basis. AD&D just has nothing to offer, in that case, that OD&D doesn’t already cover. In fact, you even have to throw out some of OD&D and build back up to its level. Regards.

[Mythmere]

The way I play OD&D, the main difference is just that lots of the rules are simpler than the AD&D version. Also, that because so many rules aren't specifically stated, you can use whatever dice happen to be in your hand at the moment. If you're not using OD&D with unusual house rules, though, I think simplicity is far and away the big distinction.

That's not the whole story, but when it's standing next to the rest of the story, the rest of the story looks really small and is probably frightened.

[stonegiant]

I use OD&D/ S&W just as Myth stated it is a simplified game. I also suck as an AD&D DM because I suffer from the block of if I am DMing an AD&D game than I want to be playing in an AD&D world, specifically Greyhawk. They are such a perfect match I can't separate them. On the other hand OD&D says to my psyche "with these rules anything goes!" with AD&D I hate to disrupt the balance. Don't get me wrong I love to play AD&D I just can't DM it. Sometimes I want to play B/X but ya'll tease me every time I pull the rules out Seriously I think the rules have to fit the crowd as well and OD&D and B/X IMO do better as intro games as well especially S&W. I gave my 22 year old son my printed out copy of the game (S&W) and he was a fan of 3rd edition he and his 3e buddies are now running their own (S&W) game, he told me the nicest thing was that they could have everyone's characters done before they finished their first beer with 3e it took at least a six pack (that was if everyone knew what they were doing) noobees pushed them into the 12 pack realm and than they had to wait till the next weekend to actually play

[Irda Ranger]

What, if anything, have any of you OD&D tinkerers done to expand your OD&D gameplay?

A number of things that would be hard to summarize without just restating my whole house rules documents. They're tweaks, rather than big themes. Um, let's see, here's a few:
1. Removed weapon restrictions, healing magic and turning undead from Clerics.
2. Made Fighting-men a bit better.
3. Added in a Thief class, but using very different rules than Supp I or AD&D came up with. Much more integrated into the larger game.
4. Created rules so anyone can cast magic, and M-Us can exceed their spells/day, in both cases though at a cost of CON or STR damage.
5. Tweaked armor and shield values to make shields more valuable.
6. Tweaked the weapons table for increased verisimilitude and creating more interesting tactical choices.
7. Removed level limits & gave humans some benefits other races don't get.
8. Fleshed out morale and loyalty rules for Hirelings and Henchmen (makes CHR more important).
9. Introduced rules for Corruption and Madness.

there's a point at which you cross the rubicon and you are playing AD&D, or Holmes Basic, or Cook Basic, or Mentzer Basic, or RC Basic...

No, because my rules don't go the same way that AD&D did. Also, I try really hard to keep the rules simple, particularly the rules you need to remember "at the game table."

This is why I prefer OD&D/S&W to AD&D. I can just add in the things I want, without have to first strip away the things I don't want (and there's too many of those to easily list in AD&D).

[Benoist]

What, if anything, have any of you OD&D tinkerers done to expand your OD&D gameplay? there's a point at which you cross the rubicon and you are playing AD&D, or Holmes Basic, or Cook Basic, or Mentzer Basic, or RC Basic...is there a way to "keep it real" without going in any of those directions? Do you have to utterly divorce yourself from anything other than the 3LBBs ?

Well yeah. If all I'm doing is adding classes and stuff... I end up wondering "why am I not running Holmes or AD&D instead?"

Fact is, I love AD&D. If I want to play AD&D, I run AD&D, not OD&D. And vice versa.

So I don't. I don't want thieves, paladins, whatever stuff that makes later versions of the game, I won't house rule them back in. I want my OD&D to be MY OD&D. So I add stuff that I think will make the game stick more to my play style and the players. So, I tinkered with iterative attacks in a completely different way than 3rd ed did (more towards Chainmail, as a matter of fact), thought about ways that used the ability scores for some dice rolling if necessary that basically stirred the task resolution towards RuneQuest style percentiles without the shitload of skills et cetera, thought it would be cool to merge my tinkering with the Perrin Conventions... and that's where I am now.

Still very much of a work in progress.

[Dagger]

I've run OD&D off and on since January, though things have dropped off recently. I found that the sweet spot for me is using:

3 LBB
Supplement I Greyhawk
Judges Guild Ready Ref Sheets
AD&D Monster Manual

3 LBB + Greyhawk hits the essence of what D&D/AD&D is to me. The Ready Ref Sheets are sort of like a DMG-Lite not to mention that the combat, weapon, and saving throw tables rock. I prefer the Monster Manual because A.) The monster stats are pretty much the same as D&D anyway B.) I like having all the info about each monster in one place rather than having the table with their vital stats separate from their description C.) The monsters are in alphabetical order and all in one book.

I also keep Best of Dragon Volume 1 handy in case someone reeeeaaallllyyy wants to play a ranger or illusionist.

[Falconer]

3 LBB
Supplement I Greyhawk
Judges Guild Ready Ref Sheets
AD&D Monster Manual

I am more or less going the same route right now, except it’s the PHB instead of the MM1. I am doing a campaign that is very “Judges Guild” in flavor (and using their modules as-written), so I wanted to use the monsters from the OD&D books (especially Vol. II and Sup. I) as-written. In general keep the OD&D materials in front of me to maintain that feel and the specific type of inspiration it lends. But I decided to use the PHB since it is just so convenient for players. So full of good advice, awesome spells, balanced XP progressions and equipment prices, etc. Basically, by using the PHB I cut out 90% of the hard work involved in running OD&D, namely, figuring out how the PCs are supposed to work.

I am going to try to use as many of the rules and tables from the Ready Ref Sheets as possible. Pure gold in there.

I am going to have two groups meeting on two separate nights but adventuring in the same area/dungeons. Also, each player will make multiple characters right off the bat. That should keep it real OD&D-feeling in that the campaign is not the story of a party but rather there is a lot of stuff going on. Initial characters must be humans of a core class (Fighter, Magic-User, or Cleric). Non-humans will only have one allowed class each (Hobbit=Fighter, Elf=Fighter/Magic-User, Dwarf=Craftsman, Vulcan=Fighter w’ Psionics, Mon Calamari=Druid, Orc=Fighter).

[Dagger]

What are you using for Vulcan psionics?

[Falconer]

I’m assuming PHB psionics will work alright. Any better suggestions?

[Dagger]

No, I was just curious if you were borrowing something from one of the Star Trek games or whether you were going the D&D/AD&D route. Sounds pretty neat!

[finarvyn]

When I play AD&D I tend to lean on the rulebooks a lot for guidelines. Much more structure than OD&D.

When I play OD&D I tend to ask the players "so, what do you think this spell does?" and improvise along the way. Much more freestyle than AD&D.

Maybe that's just me, though....

[Flambeaux]

I’m assuming PHB psionics will work alright. Any better suggestions?

I thought Psionics as implemented in 2e, especially with the Dark Sun setting, were superior to the 1e PHB. YMMV, though.

For me, if I'm running AD&D, I want to run a grey box Forgotten Realms game, although hanging out with y'all for the last five years has given me a great love for Greyhawk.

********
Comment on the main topic of discussion:

But for my enjoyment as a DM, I prefer OD&D/S&W at this point: I can go "weird" without worrying about upsetting play balance; since I mostly play-by-post (and that moves slowly enough) I like the speed with which I can resolve combat using S&W vs AD&D/OSRIC; I find it easier to encourage player creativity in response to the dungeon using OD&D/S&W relative to AD&D (where my players tend to focus on min-maxing and other "character test" behavior).

But to modify it? I just go in a different direction: Hit Dice by race, not class (d8 for humans, d6 for demi-humans), modding spell availability and interpretation (Charm Person being related to Charisma), more inventive use/alteration of monsters. I like the 3d6 in order, but I've also used 4d6 drop lowest in order or 3d6 except for Prime Requisite in chosen class (if picking beforehand) where they get 4d6 drop lowest.

For better or worse, I find that my expectations of what to provide my players, and their expectations of play, are radically different between the two games. AD&D means certain things: the dwarf thief in the same party as the half-orc assassin and both adventuring with the lawful good paladin; spells work exactly the same every time; combat is just less creative in execution because everyone is juggling modifiers (even when they are not); the default zeitgeist of AD&D tends to dominate even my homebrew settings and they end up pale imitations of the published Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms stuff (and the adventures feel derivative).

I admit none of this is dispositive and I'll happily concede that your mileage may vary, MSRP does not include tax, title, or license, see your dealer for details.