How much tinkering can your OD&D take?

[waysoftheearth]

Tinkering with "house rules" is one of the great joys of RPGs in general, and OD&D in particular. OD&D is one of the few games that strongly encourages, even requires, its players to create their own rules.

The bitter-sweet irony is that the more you house rule your OD&D, the less "authentic" your game becomes. Some may argue that they can rely on ad-hoc rulings rather than house rules, but the way I see it many of these rulings are simply house rules that aren't enshrined in text. Either way, they are one referee's way of resolving a game situation.

My question is -- How much house ruling will folks accept before a game is no longer "authentic" OD&D?

[makofan]

Once you take out the class system or the level system, it is not D&D

[Deleted]

When it comes to the original edition of the game, it is my opinion that there is no "authentic" version of the game. After all, the co-authors of the game involved science fiction, WWII armor, the old west, King Kong, and a variety of other elements in their home milieus.

In answer to your closing question: quite a bit.

[coffee]

Mar 26, 2009 5:42:10 GMT -6 makofan said:

Once you take out the class system or the level system, it is not D&D

Absolutely.

[Deleted]

I tend to avoid buying into absolutes. I am, however, happy that settles the matter for you so neatly.

And that is the beauty of D&D, isn't it? It accommodates a wide variety of playing styles with ease.

[Finarvyn]

Mar 26, 2009 5:43:54 GMT -6 @dubeers said:

When it comes to the original edition of the game, it is my opinion that there is no "authentic" version of the game.

I see what you are saying here, but I think that the "authentic" game would be essentially whatever occurs in the original books plus supplements. To take a stance that "any change to the system is okay" is sort of odd to me, becasue there are clearly elements of D&D which are not the same in other games.

I agree that "D&D" needs to have classes and levels. Taking these away creates a game which might be fun, but isn't the same game. (Unless one wants to argue, for example, that RuneQuest is "essentially D&D.")

I think you can tinker with the sparkly parts of the game and not really change it, but when you change the core of the game it's not the same thing anymore. Clearly this is a huge "gray area" but when the tinkering is done usually it either plays like D&D or it doesn't.

Or maybe I'm just getting senile.

[Deleted]

I'm thinking of the "mix and match" attitude of the co-creators of the game and don't see a problem with changing the system. As far as classes and levels?

As I understand it, Dave Arneson plays D&D with only the most rudimentary form of levels (three, if memory serves) and no changes to a PC's initial hit point rolls.

Carcosa, on the other hand, is a very playable D&D game with one basic class, the fighter. The sorcerer is basically a fighter with knowledge of how to use the sorcery rituals but is otherwise mechanically identical to a fighting man.

I, for one, would not dare to tell Arneson his game is not D&D.

As for Carcosa, while the idea of having only one class and a minor variation of that class took a bit of getting used to, I must admit the variation is perfectly playable and quite diverting.

[makofan]

Ahh, you misunderstood me; i hate typing so i am usually too terse. It is not the multiplicty of classes; it is classes themselves. I guess you can call it discrete or quantum steps in ability simultaneously. When you go up a level (however that is defined), a set of actions increases, as opposed to skill based systems like the aforementioned Runequest. Classes assumes a set of common abilities shared by members of that class - there is no need for a wear-armor skill as fighters are all assumed to be trained in armor, for example.

[Zulgyan]

It's not really important if you are not playing "authentic" or "official" OD&D. The game itself is supposed to be a catapult to spring your imagination into whatever direction you have fun with. This does not mean there will be variations I will clearly personally not like, and I also think that OD&D is an excellent starting point

[waysoftheearth]

I agree that from the gaming group perspective it doesn't really matter whether your particular flavour of D&D is true to the rules or not -- so long as everyone is having fun, then it's a good thing.

When it comes to discussion with a wider audience (such as the www), then it may be a different thing.

It seems from the above replies that, in principle at least, folks are happy to consider alternate alternate combat systems, alternate magic systems, non-weapon proficiency systems, alternate dice systems etc. So long a few core concepts (classes and levels) remain, and it still plays like D&D, then it is D&D.

Perhaps that is simply what I want to read into it -- but it does sound good to me

[Zulgyan]

As long as the game seems fun to me, I really don't care if it's D&D or not. I don't play D&D just because of it's name or because it's "authentic". But D&D is a great tool and starting point to develop other games, yes. And OD&D played with no house rules it's an awesome game too.

[RandallS]

Mar 26, 2009 4:55:25 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

My question is -- How much house ruling will folks accept before a game is no longer "authentic" OD&D?

Back in the 1970s? Most people would accept a huge amount of changes and house rules and still consider it "D&D." People tossed in their own ideas, stuff from Warlock, Arduin, T&T, MA, C&S, AD&D, etc. and still called it "D&D." These things tended to grow with time. People would start with the original three books and supplements and add this and that from other sources as they came across they they like and thought would fit their game.

To be honest, I suspect a lot of stuff that people today would say "that's not OD&D" to would have had little problem being considered "D&D" by most players in the mid to late 70s. Spell points were a common addition. Combat tables were often redone (and turned upside down with ascending armor classes or turned into percentile rolls or even hands of playing cards). Etc. Etc. However, the basic concepts of classes and levels were usually still there. Withour those most people would have started wondering if the game was still D&D.

[geoffrey]

I'm in basic agreement with both dubeers and makofan.

The 1974 rules have only 3 classes. As dubeers noted, Carcosa has only 2 classes (which are quite similar to one another). And Carcosa is nothing if not D&D. I have no problem conceiving of a D&D campaign in which there is only 1 class: fighting-men. So, as makofan says, it's not the number of classes that is important.

As dubeers also noted, Dave Arneson plays D&D with only three levels. Similarly, a pure Holmes D&D campaign would also have only three levels. I have no problem conceiving of a D&D campaign in which there is only 1 level: the level at which you start. (Imagine, for example, a Holmes D&D game in which everyone is 1st level and can never reach 2nd.)

Since D&D can have even just 1 class and just 1 level, where's the rub?

For me, it's a robust skill system. A secondary skill system tacked on almost as an afterthought (as in Gary's AD&D Dungeon Masters Guide) doesn't take the game out of the realm of D&D. But when you have a long list of skills that define the character (as in, for example, the Call of Cthulhu RPG), THAT is when you've crossed the line into the realm of "I don't think we're in D&D Land anymore."

That's my take on things, anyway.

[Finarvyn]

Mar 26, 2009 4:55:25 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

My question is -- How much house ruling will folks accept before a game is no longer "authentic" OD&D?

I think that the discussion has gotten a bit off of the original question. It's not a matter of what's a fun game or what you like to play. I think that the question was all about how much you can change the game and still have it recognizable as D&D, as opposed to another RPG.

For example, I could take my D&D rules and change the dice to percentile. I could add a skill system. I could re-do the magic system. I could change the core races and monsters. You might call it "D&D" but Dave Arneson called it "Adventures in Fantasy."

Or, I could take my D&D rules and put it into a 1860's Wild West setting. I could change the dice to percentile, work out a "first shot" chart, make accuracy a stat, and so on. Call it "D&D" if you like, but Gary Gygax called it "Boot Hill."

You see what I mean?

My point is that if the question is "what can you change and still have it be D&D" then it's not fair to say that a total overhaul is still D&D. That was my problem with 3E and continues in 4E, that the system is so different from the OD&D that I am used to. Perhaps simply maintaining the class/level system isn't a good answer, becasue 4E has classes and levels and is a very different game. Tunnels & Trolls uses classes and levels and it's not D&D, either. Lots of video games use class and level, and they aren't D&D.

So what "is" D&D?

Not just a setting, because clearly D&D can be played in a fantasy or historical setting or on Mars or in many different environments and it can be clearly recognized as D&D.

Not just a type of dice to roll in a given situation, because several variants are "all d6 D&D" or "all d20 D&D" or whatever and they tend to resemble D&D as well.

I guess my own argument disproves my earlier statement that having a class/level system "makes" a game D&D, becasue too many other games (now) have such things. I think that the use of class/level instead of skills still seems like an important component of D&D, but clearly it must be more than this.

Maybe a blend of the elements listed above?

[Zulgyan]

Maybe something similar to what the US Supreme Court said about pornography. "Hard to define but you know what it is when you see it".

[dwayanu]

My rough standard: Can you use the "language" of the OD&D books to communicate your conception adequately?

Without some acquaintance with 4E, I would be totally in the dark as to what 4E players are talking about even more often than I still am. Going the other way, what does "hit dice" mean to them?

If optional elaborations can be stripped away to leave the same basics, then you're still in. If the major framework of the basics is the same, but minor details are different, then you're in. Arduin combat tables, for instance, have slightly different numbers plugged in, but they're used the same old way.

If you can pick up an OD&D module and use it without "conversion", and turn around and write up a scenario from your game as an OD&D module, then as far as anyone on either side of that "black box" can tell ... you're both playing D&D.

[dwayanu]

Both Arduin and Carcosa are supplements to OD&D. Thus, even if either leads to an evolutionary state at which many might not (without being told) recognize the game as D&D, the OD&D foundation is still going to be present in the context the authors assumed. One is not left speaking only a new language.

[waysoftheearth]

Mar 26, 2009 22:09:40 GMT -6 dwayanu said:

Can you use the "language" of the OD&D books to communicate your conception adequately?

Mar 26, 2009 22:09:40 GMT -6 dwayanu said:

If you can pick up an OD&D module and use it without "conversion", and turn around and write up a scenario from your game as an OD&D module, then as far as anyone on either side of that "black box" can tell ... you're both playing D&D.

Thanks Dwayanu for those two very insightful (exalt worthy) observations.

You've inspired me to revisit the "language" of my own house rules, with the aim of (hopefully) shifting toward supplementary material rather than something entirely different.

[Finarvyn]

As always, Dwayanu is wise. :-)

With most RPGs you can look at a person's house rules and see right away if they are playing the game the "right way" or not. Certainly Gary's AD&D rules set was an attempt to establish an exact standard for conventions and tournaments such that there was clearly a "right way" and we could all agree about the letter of the law as well as the spirit.

The problem has always been that OD&D does not establish a clear letter of the law, and indeed directly tells the reader not to do so. So, fundamentially we have a game built on a skeleton of parameters with explicit instructions to house-rule.

Dwayanu's "language criteria" is therefore probably the best test of all, although sadly it's a vague enough test such that we'll never be able to answer the OP question with a line in the sand with D&D on one side, non D&D on the other.

Fun to discuss and debate, however.

[benoist]

It depends what you mean by "authentic OD&D".

If you mean it literally, then any modification of the original material would end up not being "authentic".

If you are referring to the way OD&D was played back in the day, there is no such thing as an "authentic" OD&D as people on the Lake Geneva gaming scene were all coming up with their own houserules, sharing them, experimenting with the game when the rules weren't even finalized in the final three booklets form.

If by using this expression you mean an authentic D&D feel, then the discussion becomes open to personal perceptions of what an authentic D&D game is supposed to feel like. I'd suggest reading the Quick Primer of Old School Gaming (it's a free download) to get an idea of how most of us understand the concepts sustaining the feel of the game.

Then, you can start experimenting through play and see what works, what doesn't. Good luck!

[thegreyelf]

Mar 26, 2009 21:21:43 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

My point is that if the question is "what can you change and still have it be D&D" then it's not fair to say that a total overhaul is still D&D. That was my problem with 3E and continues in 4E, that the system is so different from the OD&D that I am used to. Perhaps simply maintaining the class/level system isn't a good answer, becasue 4E has classes and levels and is a very different game. Tunnels & Trolls uses classes and levels and it's not D&D, either. Lots of video games use class and level, and they aren't D&D.

Palladium Fantasy is, I think, an even better example...it's a game that BEGAN as heavily house-ruled AD&D.

But I'd argue that while the disconnect began in perhaps 2nd edition, it only really starts to be evident in 3.5. But 4th edition is where they completely threw the baby out with the bathwater; every edition up till then was at least recognizable as an evolution of some kind from the original rules. 4th ed says, "There are no sacred cows; we've eaten them all."

So what "is" D&D?

Not just a setting, because clearly D&D can be played in a fantasy or historical setting or on Mars or in many different environments and it can be clearly recognized as D&D.

Not just a type of dice to roll in a given situation, because several variants are "all d6 D&D" or "all d20 D&D" or whatever and they tend to resemble D&D as well.

I guess my own argument disproves my earlier statement that having a class/level system "makes" a game D&D, becasue too many other games (now) have such things. I think that the use of class/level instead of skills still seems like an important component of D&D, but clearly it must be more than this.

Maybe a blend of the elements listed above?

I tend to agree with this, and would add as I said above, it needs to at least be recognizable as directly evolved from the original in more than just name and superficial elements kept for recognition's sake.

[scogle]

An infinite amount. The combat system is the only thing reasonably well-developed as is, and you need Chainmail for that (plus you have to go through and choose what rules to ignore as they clearly only apply to massed battles, such as movement penalties for formation change). Everything else seems like a house-rule, with its own separate mechanic. Adding more rules to cover various extra situations that players might run into frequently, or to alter things to fit in with your campaign world, seems totally in the spirit of the game and makes up the majority of material in the supplements/dragon articles

[Deleted]

May 14, 2009 13:52:54 GMT -6 thegreyelf said:

4th ed says, "There are no sacred cows; we've eaten them all."

I'd fully agree, but they forgot HP and AC. Once those go it's finished.

[waysoftheearth]

Nov 7, 2009 9:42:04 GMT -6 @coplen said:

May 14, 2009 13:52:54 GMT -6 thegreyelf said:

4th ed says, "There are no sacred cows; we've eaten them all."

I'd fully agree, but they forgot HP and AC. Once those go it's finished.

I'm no expert, but it seems to me that the latest product under the D&D name has altered the meaning of both hit-points and armour class quite dramatically (at least by comparison to OD&D).

In that game, monsters (and presumably PCs?) commonly have hundreds of hit-points, some even have thousands! Only several orders of magnitude difference there. I dare not imagine the accounting systems needed to keep track of all those huge numbers...

Armour class has gone from a finite rating between 2 and 9 where lower is better, to a (seemingly?) unlimited rating of 10 and up, where higher (and higher, and yes, higher) is better. A friend who plays 4E was boasting to me about one of his PCs with "AC in the 70s". At first I thought he was talking about the 1970s, but alas no. It seems to me to be quite a different thing masquerading under the same name.

[Finarvyn]

Here's a new definition I submit to the masses: "If you can take your rules set and run it with the G-Series modules with minimal modification, than it's D&D. The more you have to modify, the less like D&D it becomes." :-)

Just me thinking out loud.

[irdaranger]

Mar 26, 2009 4:55:25 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

How much house ruling will folks accept before a game is no longer "authentic" OD&D?

My rule of thumb is that house rules should not outnumber the "real" rules. And preferably the page count should be 1/3rd or less. Really, about one 24 page booklet is the max.

[Falconer]

A lot of good “rules of thumb” here. Are you still basically using a 1970s D&D book as your base? Can I run a 1970s D&D module in your houseruled game, or a module for your houseruled game in my 1970s D&D game? Does our basic terminology mean the same thing, etc.

I will go out on a limb and make a more concrete rule that applies from my perspective: someone mentioned classes and levels; I agree, and I will add in 3-18 range ability scores. You gotta have those or it is not D&D. Now, the inverse is not necessarily true: having these elements will not make a game automatically D&D. But those things are real deal-breakers for me if it is going to be considered D&D. Regards.

[irdaranger]

Mar 10, 2010 23:42:58 GMT -6 Falconer said:

Can I run a 1970s D&D module in your houseruled game, or a module for your houseruled game in my 1970s D&D game?

This is a good rule. I used to say "If you can run Keep on the Borderlands without conversion (or without any more conversion than you can track in your head at any rate), it's D&D."