Experiences With Minimalist OD&D

[jakdethe]

This isn't by the book OD&D in any stretch of the imagination. I'm not actually sure it belongs here in Men & Magic, but it has to do with player characters, so I think it's appropriate.

Anyway, I've been running a campaign for a few weeks at my FLGS. I've been using my heavily modified house rules for OD&D. The major changes I've made are thus:
1) Removed attribute scores entirely; any relevant bonus is simply worked into the class statistics if appropriate.
2) Classes are extremely bare bones; almost all of them have a few class abilities that don't improve and remain static (the main exception being spell-casters).
3) Simplified and paired down most statistics, for example; all classes have a 15 saving throw, with bonuses to relevant saves (like Swords & Wizardry). Another most of you guys will hate, base attack bonus is simply 1/2 level, with Fighters getting a +1.

I'm sure there are more changes, but those are the biggest. I've essentially just tossed out the rules. In fact I started this campaign this way, partially because I don't have access to any of my books right now (except S&W Whitebox).

The first thing I've noticed with this is something you guys pointed out. Really I made this post to kind of say "hey you guys were totally right!". The game has completely shifted from character focus to adventure focus. No one really cares about class abilities, or spends anytime trying to optimize or micro-manage (there's nothing to optimize). The entire game is all about adventure, exploration, and overcoming challenges.

This goes without saying, but obviously the game is simplified. Character creation takes a few seconds if the player knows what they want to play. Furthermore, there is just complete freedom. A player can come to me with a concept, and we just make it. They determine what's important to them, and what they want their character to be able to do, and I simply work with them to make it playable. It's been such a liberating experience, and it's reminded me of why I started playing OD&D in the first place.

I'm sure there's more to be said, and there's definitely a lot of minutia and rules discussions I could get into, about the benefits of the changes I've made, however the real point here is we're having a lot of fun. Was it necessary to do all of this? Not at all. Has it been a playable, and extremely enjoyable game? In fact, I'd be willing to say this is the most fun I've had running D&D ever.

[cooper]

What makes it D&D? Sure you're role playing, but the two are not perfect synonyms. Also, 0d&d itself doesn't put a lot of emphasis on character creation. Are you using all of the dungeon exploration rules (squares per turn, rest turns, wandering encounter rolls etc) or are those minimized as well? At some point one has to admit that they are just free associating a role-playing session and they might as well have monopoly sitting on the table as well as d&d if they aren't actually using the game.

If you've boiled it down to attack matrix and hit dice, I would say it's the opposite of 0d&d. It's CHAINMAIL at 1:1. D&D is primarily about dungeon and wilderness exploration rules. When you use the rules you're playing D&D. Role-Playing is not technically part of the rules of the game any more than you roll-play a tycoon in monopoly.

[Deleted]

OD&D is already so freakin' minimalistic I can't imagine cutting much out and having it be recognizably D&D. It's a couple of hit charts, a saving throw chart, an XP chart, and some suggested monsters and treasure.

And attribute bonuses are so rare ... I think only DEX, CON, and CHA even get any, and then only on a 15+ for DEX and CON.

And how is OD&D character focused? No feats, no skills, rarely a bonus. Are you sure you're talking about OD&D?

[Porphyre]

Searchers of the Unknow ?

[jakdethe]

Yes very much like Searchers of the Unknown.

To clarify, I don't think anything is wrong with OD&D, and I'm more or less commenting on D&D rpg's in general, having played so many later editions lately. However I will say that with newer players (the guys I get to play with), they still hold on to a lot of their perception of roleplaying games that they got from playing later games (3E, 2E, GURPS, etc.). So even using OD&D with those guys, they see "attributes" and class statistics and try to make the game very character focused, and they try to figure out ways to maximize bonuses and what not. In fact this leads to a lot of frustration on both ends I've noticed, because they try to force their paradigm onto OD&D. Once again, not a criticism leveled at OD&D, simply an observation on playing with newer players.

To further clarify, I'm definitely still playing D&D. All I've modified is the character rules. I very much still use everything in M&T and U&WA. Dungeon and wilderness exploration rules are all still in place, surprise is handled as usual, checks for traps and secret doors, wandering monsters, etc. All rules are just on my (DM) side, and all those rules are from my OD&D booklets. In fact I would say I'm very much playing D&D, I'm just using it like a tool kit, using it as a guideline as the foreword tells you too. At worst I'd say I'm doing something similar to Arduin or the Perrin Conventions. So maybe not "Dungeons & Dragons" but very much "D&D", if that makes sense.

[kesher]

So maybe not "Dungeons & Dragons" but very much "D&D", if that makes sense.

I'd say that makes complete sense, personally. I firmly believe that you can play D&D using few if any of the actual "rules." The rules, in fact, support this, particularly in ODD.

cooper:

When you use the rules you're playing D&D.

What?? Which rules? The ones the rulebook explicitly tells you change or abandon as you see fit?

@gronanofsimmerya:

And how is OD&D character focused? No feats, no skills, rarely a bonus. Are you sure you're talking about OD&D?

What?? Since when do feats, skills, and bonuses define being "character focused"? ODD is or CAN BE about the characters as much as anything else, as-is. RPGs are character-focused by default since you, you know, make a character...

[Porphyre]

Dec 8, 2014 10:23:31 GMT -6 kesher said:

I suppose that what gronanofsymeria is talking about is not character-focused in the sense of "you make a character and have him live adventures in an imaginary setting" (wich is the premise of all RPGs) but character-focused in the sense of "character creation is a subtle exercise of balancing different parameters in ordre to create your own perfect unique snowflake" (wich is a frequent feature of several skill-related RPGs)

[jakdethe]

Dec 8, 2014 10:23:31 GMT -6 kesher said:

So maybe not "Dungeons & Dragons" but very much "D&D", if that makes sense.

I'd say that makes complete sense, personally. I firmly believe that you can play D&D using few if any of the actual "rules." The rules, in fact, support this, particularly in ODD.

Thanks Kesher, you're definitely one of the guys on here that has influenced my style and philosophy of play lately.

[kesher]

Dec 8, 2014 12:38:16 GMT -6 Porphyre said:

Dec 8, 2014 10:23:31 GMT -6 kesher said:

I suppose that what gronanofsymeria is talking about is not character-focused in the sense of "you make a character and have him live adventures in an imaginary setting" (wich is the premise of all RPGs) but character-focused in the sense of "character creation is a subtle exercise of balancing different parameters in ordre to create your own perfect unique snowflake" (wich is a frequent feature of several skill-related RPGs)

Upon reflection, you may well be right. I thought he was responding to something in the OP, but all I could find was this:

The first thing I've noticed with this is something you guys pointed out. Really I made this post to kind of say "hey you guys were totally right!". The game has completely shifted from character focus to adventure focus. No one really cares about class abilities, or spends anytime trying to optimize or micro-manage (there's nothing to optimize). The entire game is all about adventure, exploration, and overcoming challenges.

...which is saying the opposite.

[dizzysaxophone]

jakdethe definitely sounds like a cool idea. I've considered doing this myself a few times, but generally I've been lucky in that nearly all the groups I've run in the past were completely new to Pen & Paper role playing games, so they had no real familiarity with trying to min-max their characters. Good luck with your game! definitely sounds good to me!

[Deleted]

Jak, I agree about how it's a change for later edition players. I know at least 1 3E player who refuses to play OD&D because what his character can do isn't explicitly spelled out.

On the other hand, most people seem to adjust to the "don't worry about stats" in game fairly quickly. Also, having learned to play under Gary and Dave and their "don't worry about the rules, just tell me what you want to do" paradigm, I see no need to cut out any rules... nobody but me knows the rules anyway.

[cooper]

When you are disacociated from rules, you aren't playing a particular game. You can role-play monopoly if one wants. Mastery of the rules is how one survives a dungeon crawl. The problem isn't heavy engagement with the rules, it's what rules are being heavily engaged. It's good to minimize character rules, because that's not what 0d&d is about.

Gary was wrong to say ignore the rules. Nobody pays a game writer to say, "hey, I don't have a vision or a system, so feel free to ignore everything you pay for." Game design is an act of creation. No rules should be discarded. They should be played fully and to the hilt. It is the only way to gauge if the game is any good. If an author can't stand behind his creation, he didn't put enough thought into it.

That being said, D&D, being the first, was not a concise game as much as it was a modular game where the players were encouraged to pull rules from various supplements (the original books and supplements are full of "alternate systems") in order to "mod" their own version and focusing on what they felt was important (exploration, combat, magic, RP, etc). In fact there are even multiple combat systems to choose from.

Although that is a separate subject, I no doubt believe there are players who use no rules at all, roll no dice and would still claim to be playing "D&D" as long as D&D was a broad enough definition to include shared narrative story.

[snorri]

Dec 8, 2014 1:33:24 GMT -6 Porphyre said:

Searchers of the Unknow ?

Someone summoned me ?

The Searchers of the Unknown Library is currently in progress :
searchersoftheunknown.wordpress.com/

I still have some version on my computer which will be online in the next days.

And I you see a version lacking, please send it to me

[Stormcrow]

Dec 8, 2014 16:19:08 GMT -6 cooper said:

Gary was wrong to say ignore the rules. Nobody pays a game writer to say, "hey, I don't have a vision or a system, so feel free to ignore everything you pay for." Game design is an act of creation. No rules should be discarded. They should be played fully and to the hilt. It is the only way to gauge if the game is any good. If an author can't stand behind his creation, he didn't put enough thought into it.

When I run a game, my goal isn't to judge the rules editor, it's to run a good game. The game books are just there to give me suggestions on building and running my world of "let's pretend," not to tell me how to pretend.

[Deleted]

Dec 8, 2014 22:46:18 GMT -6 Stormcrow said:

Dec 8, 2014 16:19:08 GMT -6 cooper said:

Gary was wrong to say ignore the rules. Nobody pays a game writer to say, "hey, I don't have a vision or a system, so feel free to ignore everything you pay for." Game design is an act of creation. No rules should be discarded. They should be played fully and to the hilt. It is the only way to gauge if the game is any good. If an author can't stand behind his creation, he didn't put enough thought into it.

When I run a game, my goal isn't to judge the rules editor, it's to run a good game. The game books are just there to give me suggestions on building and running my world of "let's pretend," not to tell me how to pretend.

See Also "Free Kriegspiel."

[jakdethe]

Dec 8, 2014 16:19:08 GMT -6 cooper said:

Mastery of the rules is how one survives a dungeon crawl.

To me what makes old school D&D, and OD&D in particular is the philosophy that one survives a dungeon crawl through common sense, logic, cooperation, and critical thinking. None of which requires rules, or rules mastery. That's just my style of play though. To me rules are there when the rest of those tools fall short. For example combat, a situation where cannot simply "talk through" the conflict. Though this is just the style of play I've extrapolated from reading a bunch of old school blogs and what not.

[Deleted]

Dec 8, 2014 16:19:08 GMT -6 cooper said:

Mastery of the rules is how one survives a dungeon crawl.

Which is directly at odds with not ONLY the way Dave and Gary played it, but over 150 years of wargaming experience.

"Free Kriegspiel" is NOT the only way to play, but NEITHER is "rigid Kriegspiel."

[kesher]

Preach it, Brother Gronan!

[Deleted]

Bookmarking this thread. WIll comment over the weekend.

[Finarvyn]

This is always a tricky topic, as some folks are quite "by the book" oriented and others are more "freeform" in their style.

Personally, I think that OD&D is a skeleton of a rules system that can be tweaked, enhanced, simplified, and otherwise changed in many ways but still stay OD&D. I base this in part on my personal experience and that of folks who played with Dave and Gary who report that the rules are secondary to the adventure.

On the other hand, there are some changes which (to me) change the game a lot and make it not OD&D any more. For example, scrapping levels makes a new game but changing from all-d6 hit dice to funky hit dice keeps the game intact. I can't say exactly where a change crosses some threshold into a new game, but I know it when I see it. Jakdethe's tweaks don't seem to have crossed that line, IMO.

General thoughts:

(1) Nothing wrong with throwing out stats and going with bonuses, but I don't think you mentioned if you still use the OD&D bonuses or if you used B/X or whatever. Nor did you mention how your characters obtained those bonuses. One thing I like about D&D is the bell curve model of 3d6 because extraordinary stats require extraordinary rolls.

(2) Simplified classes can be good or bad. Again, you have a few examples but not a lot of details but in concept this can be fine. I prefer keeping classes more BTB but limiting the number of classes (e.g. sticking to the "core four") but having more classes with limited powers can work as well.

(3) From a game mechanic standpoint, the choices you made sound reasonable. A single saving throw can work well, as S&W has shown. Also, nothing wrong with tweaking the "to hit" bonus shouldn't be a game breaker, assuming that fighters remain better at fighting than other classes.

Some neat ideas and neat discussions here!

[jakdethe]

To give a few better examples:

1) I keep bonuses to a +1 at most for first level characters. And generally it matches to classes. For example the Fighter gets a +1 "to hit", damage, and hit point per level. I feel that's in keeping with OD&D, and not too high.

2) The above mentioned fighter is a good example of my classes. He's a fighter just like in OD&D, and he gets a few bonuses relevant to his profession. Another example is a Ranger one of my players is running: dual wield (two attacks) at no penalty, a +1 with ranged weapons, and a 3-in-6 chance for surprise ("sneaking"). My thief functions similarly, getting a "back stab" bonus whenever attacking from surprise (whether it's an occupied opponent, or he was sneaking the round before), a 3-in-6 chance to "sneak", and a couple other standard thief skills (like pick locks, find/remove traps, etc).

I'm glad my style of play generally meets the approval of you all, as you guys (and the discussions here) are a huge influence on my DMing style. Even those of you who disagree are making valid points, and I love the discussion it's fostering. Definitely my favorite place to discuss D&D.

[talysman]

I think the main thrust of the post was that you were encouraging the players to not think about the rules, right? Rather than the specific tweaks you used behind the scenes? I can get behind that.

As for what is and is not D&D, I too think of it as a range -- very D&D, mainly D&D, somewhat D&D -- leading to a threshold beyond which it's a different game. And the context matters: when you say "this is D&D", are you talking in terms of mechanics, or are you talking about broader rules? In the broader context, the exact mechanics -- d20 for every resolution roll, d20 only for attacks and saves, 3d6 or 2d6 instead, roll over vs. roll under -- just don't matter much, especially if the players aren't aware of the exact mechanics. But there's a structure of D&D that is not entirely mechanics: you have a class and a level, you explore a fantasy world, you seek out adventure, you advance as a resultof adventuring. As long as a RPG sticks to this structure, it's D&D in a broad sense, even if it might not be D&D in a narrow sense. If it diverges a little, dropping classes or levels, perhaps, it's still at least semi-D&D.

[jakdethe]

Talysman you summed it up much better than I did.

[Deleted]

You guys might know that I, like Fin, favor easier, quicker versions of D&D any day.
Many of my shorter, more improvised games run are based on BFRPG, LotFP, and other, very, very simple rulesets.

OD&D in particular, I have never cut down, but given that I don't really go down to reread the rules most of the time, much of BFRPG, LotFP, and, specifically, much of the old D&D modificators from the 80s has bled into my gaming.

One thing I do fairly routinely, though, when I run games for children, or do one-shots, is that I take the attributes, and only use their modifiers on the charsheet. Very simple, but very fast paced. Saving throws are high in my game, as I usually run games of the more horrifying kind, but it kind of blends into the attributes; as in, I usually divide wisdom into "conventional wisdom" and "mental sanity". ...And the like.

A coherent formula, I lamentably cannot present you yet, mainly, because I often go after what the scenario requires. ...But I think I might start to look for one.

[Finarvyn]

I'm glad that this thread is staying predominantly positive and constructive. I think we all can appreciate the value of some variety in experiences and this kind of thread makes me think about different ways I might run short campaigns or one-shot adventures. (For a long time, I didn't use exactly the same rules twice in a row. I'd tinker with combat mods or XP or hit dice or something each time around...)

Dec 16, 2014 5:40:30 GMT -6 @rafael said:

Many of my shorter, more improvised games run are based on BFRPG, LotFP, and other, very, very simple rulesets.

And that's one of the best things (to me) about the so-called OSR ... we have lots of folks offering their own flavor of essentially the same rules systems. Sure, back in the day they would have resulted in articles in DRAGON instead of their own "rules sets" but the result is the same -- we get a lot of cool ideas to ponder!

Dec 16, 2014 5:40:30 GMT -6 @rafael said:

One thing I do fairly routinely, though, when I run games for children, or do one-shots, is that I take the attributes, and only use their modifiers on the charsheet.

I agree that this works best for a one-shot, simply because it trims out one layer of complexity. I still prefer actual stats for a longer game because it allows for more gradual advancement via spells and such.

Dec 16, 2014 5:40:30 GMT -6 @rafael said:

I usually run games of the more horrifying kind, but it kind of blends into the attributes; as in, I usually divide wisdom into "conventional wisdom" and "mental sanity". ...And the like.

I understand the sentiment, but to me Wisdom becomes a dump stat in many campaigns so I like to group those things together to make Wisdom mean more, even if your method is more realistic.

Nice ideas!

[inkmeister]

Absolutely, hands down, I favor this approach as well. I don't think D&D was must be any particular thing - it depends what you want out of it. I prefer to discard anything that doesn't add to my game. Ability scores are one of those obvious things to me, though I recognize they are important to other folks I respect here.

I think it's great to discard unwanted rules, classes, monsters, treasures, spells, etc. Great to add whatever you want to make whatever you want. The ease of doing that with D&D, OD&D in particular, is one of the main reasons I love D&D.

[Deleted]

Dec 16, 2014 20:18:39 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

And that's one of the best things (to me) about the so-called OSR ... we have lots of folks offering their own flavor of essentially the same rules systems. Sure, back in the day they would have resulted in articles in DRAGON instead of their own "rules sets" but the result is the same -- we get a lot of cool ideas to ponder!

Hehe, could not have put it in better words. I, Grinch that I am, resent the OSR for exacty that: The excessive branding and labeling of stuff that, well, isn't really that much of a big thing. - Then again, that OD&D variants got pushed into the indie sector is hardly the fault of the respective writers, but of Wizbro's failed company policy, because, for the longest time, there was no reward system for creative fans and independent designers. That's what made people reorganize, and, moreover, that's what will grant the game ten more good years.

What I would like to see would be a resurgence of *good* gaming mags, indeed. Not so much Kobold Quarterly, or Gygax Mag, but something open AND well done, like the first 30 issues of White Dwarf, back in the day.

Dec 16, 2014 20:18:39 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

I understand the sentiment, but to me Wisdom becomes a dump stat in many campaigns so I like to group those things together to make Wisdom mean more, even if your method is more realistic.

Truth to be told, I think D&D, regardless of edition, is not really fit for horror games; the only problem is, outside of nWoD, I have found few games that are easy and at the same time, quick to learn for beginners, and so, I stick to the easy choice.

[Deleted]

Dec 18, 2014 5:02:19 GMT -6 @rafael said:

quote]Hehe, could not have put it in better words. I, Grinch that I am, resent the OSR for exacty that: The excessive branding and labeling of stuff that, well, isn't really that much of a big thing. - Then again, that OD&D variants got pushed into the indie sector is hardly the fault of the respective writers, but of Wizbro's failed company policy, because, for the longest time, there was no reward system for creative fans and independent designers. That's what made people reorganize, and, moreover, that's what will grant the game ten more good years.

How and where were OD&D variants labeled "indie"? I have not heard or seen that and don't understand how they could be considered part of that. Please explain.

[Deleted]

I run most of my OD&D games with a horror atmosphere blended into the fantasy. First level characters plundering unknown underworlds full of unnatural monsters that can deliver grisly death without warning. Doesn't require special rules or adventures, just proper descriptive tone. After the first time players watch a screaming hireling dragging himself across the floor on fire after getting his legs bit off by a giant lizard, the atmosphere will be established. ;-)

[Merctime]

I have nothing of value to add to this thread, except that what Droll stated above, is simply beautiful. Now, that's a gaming attitude if I ever heard one. Fight On!