|
Post by James Maliszewski on Dec 30, 2007 22:57:46 GMT -6
So, I was finally able to run an OD&D game this evening with my three regular players and one drop-in and the results were quite mixed, both for myself and (especially) for my players.
THE GOOD: The characters. One of the advantages of OD&D's very skeletal rules structure is that players must either find non-mechanical means of differentiating their characters or else be consigned to the anonymity of "The Fighter" or "The Cleric." My players rose to the occasion and all of them were pretty well-rounded and interesting characters. I would say that there was more characterization and roleplaying in the first few minutes of the game tonight than I typically get in the first few sessions under other rules. So, a big thumbs up here.
THE BAD Confusion. All of my players had played D&D before and had lengthy histories with the game. None had ever played OD&D, although one had played the Holmes Basic Set and the others the Moldvay versions of the same. Whenever it wasn't obvious or I didn't immediately correct them, they assumed OD&D worked the way that other versions of the game did, which created confusion and, in some cases, disappointment, since they felt the rules were enough like what they were familiar with to try and guess the logic behind them but different enough that they were often wrong in their guesses. I worked around this well enough but it was irksome.
THE UGLY The lack of a "task" system. I tried very hard to get my players to think about character actions in a non-mechanical way but it didn't work very well. They felt that, when they tried something for which the chance of success was not guaranteed or whose results were subject to doubt, that there ought to be dice rolls. Personally, I like the random element in D&D, so I had no objection to the idea in principle. Unfortunately, it proved difficult to find a resolution system that, in my players' opinion, gave appropriate weight to things like their class, their level, their abilities, their race, etc. In short, they felt that the obvious systems you could derive just from the three OD&D books were too random, to the point of being arbitrary. This bled a lot of the fun out of several otherwise fun moments in the game.
All in all, I'm left a little disheartened. My players were trying very hard to get in the right frame of mind. They were quite willing to take what I presented them with for granted and run with it. In fact, they were very good at that. It was only when either the OD&D rules provided no guides or models from which to extrapolate that other versions of D&D were discussed and offered as alternatives.
There was no single deal-breaking problem for my players, just the steady nickel and diming of things that bothered them or that they felt made no sense. I should stress again that they did a heroic job of keeping up with my enthusiasm for the rules and the approach of OD&D. We all had a fun night, but, as one of my players remarked, we'd have had a fun night with these same characters in this same adventure under any system. The rules did little to enhance the play and in a few cases the fun was had in spite of the rules.
I'll need to think a bit more about it to render a final verdict. It may just be that my players are simply too used to more modern styles of play and thus prefer them. If so, there's not much I can do to change that nor would I wish to do so. However, I'm beginning to think that OD&D's lasting value is in its general philosophy and approach rather than in its specific rules. Goodness knows I've learned more about the underpinnings of the class system from OD&D than I ever did from later editions of the game. But, as I said, I need to think more about this.
|
|
|
Post by grodog on Dec 30, 2007 23:42:11 GMT -6
Interesting feedback, James. FWIW, I hope you and your players give it a whirl for another 2-3 sessions before you collectively consider throwing in the towel: I would think that giving the game that many sessions, at least, would be sufficient to form more-informed opinions about how the game works for you and your players. Also, having never played OD&D myself, I'm interested to hear about your experiences over time, too, as you get more used to/comfortable with the system. Hopefully
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on Dec 31, 2007 0:10:58 GMT -6
THE UGLY The lack of a "task" system. I tried very hard to get my players to think about character actions in a non-mechanical way but it didn't work very well. They felt that, when they tried something for which the chance of success was not guaranteed or whose results were subject to doubt, that there ought to be dice rolls. Personally, I like the random element in D&D, so I had no objection to the idea in principle. Unfortunately, it proved difficult to find a resolution system that, in my players' opinion, gave appropriate weight to things like their class, their level, their abilities, their race, etc. In short, they felt that the obvious systems you could derive just from the three OD&D books were too random, to the point of being arbitrary. This bled a lot of the fun out of several otherwise fun moments in the game. All in all, I'm left a little disheartened. My players were trying very hard to get in the right frame of mind. They were quite willing to take what I presented them with for granted and run with it. In fact, they were very good at that. It was only when either the OD&D rules provided no guides or models from which to extrapolate that other versions of D&D were discussed and offered as alternatives. Great to hear that they played and (mostly) enjoyed the game. But here's my 2 coppers on the "task system" discussion: you all might be thinking too hard about it. This kind of discussion was rampant in the earliest days of gaming, leading to a LOT of house rules on things, sometimes quite elaborate systems for figuring things out, and most of them completely incompatible with each other. But really, there's no need for anything other than your own judgment as the referee, and a simple roll of the dice. Some people prefer a percentile roll, others prefer a d20 - whatever works. Were I in your shoes, I would've nipped in the bud discussions of later game systems. Make the players THINK about what their characters were attempting, and then make 'em argue and ROLE-PLAY for the rationale about why being a fighter, or a dwarf, or having a background in engineering would make a difference. Then set a percentage and roll. Part of the fun in the original game system was simply running the game as you saw fit, and building up that sense of TRUST among your players that you will give them a fair shake in your estimate of the odds. The entire elephantitis of rules comes about when that trust isn't there, which is one reason why we've got $40 hardcovers masquerading as "rules". Again, just my two coppers.
|
|
|
Post by calithena on Dec 31, 2007 9:06:56 GMT -6
Heck, James, I know you know that there are a million easy resolution systems out there. The SIEGE engine plugs in to OD&D fine. I like my approach of using open doors (difficult) and bend bars/lift gates (extreme) from the AD&D PHB as a general resolution system for all attributes too. Rolling a d20 (difficult) or d30 (extreme) or d100 (impossible) under stat plus level (if class relevant to activity) plus a racial modifier (if applicable) is a quick and dirty one that works pretty well. And then there's the old stat or (stat minus threshold) x difficulty modifier = percentage for success. Yada yada.
What needs to be emphasized for the sake of the playstyle I think you want is that all such systems are defaults for convenience, and that more interesting ones can be substituted at DM discretion. But having the default there is not a big deal, especially if it helps your players settle down.
On the other hand, if they just want a rule in the background to calculate percentages, tell them that that's not how you want them to be thinking about their character's actions, and take a firm line. They should not be thinking about combat that way either IMO.
(Again, let a thousand flowers blossom and all that shirt. This is based on my impression of what you want, based on its similarities to things I want.)
|
|
wulfgar
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 126
|
Post by wulfgar on Dec 31, 2007 9:18:35 GMT -6
I know what works in one group, might not in another, but here's my advice on the task resolution concern:
Just roll the dice behind the screen.
With a system so simple, such as OD&D, either pull a perecentage chance out the air or roll vs an ability score (perhaps with a modifier) and tell the player if they make it or not.
Besides that- Let's hear about the actual adventure you ran! Details! Details!
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Dec 31, 2007 9:52:25 GMT -6
Badger is right. You're thinking too hard about the whole thing.
1. Another vote for the SIEGE engine (from C&C, if you're not familiar with it)
2. How 'bout stat checks? "Okay, roll under your Dex..." or "This is a tough one. Roll under half of your Dex..."
Both are very quick on-the-fly solutions.
You might remind the players that a complex skill or "task resolution" system tends to limit characters as much as benefit them. Want to climb a wall? Oh, but you don't have a Climb skill so you can't do it. With OD&D we never asked those questions because we didn't have skill lists. Want to climb a wall? Okay, make a STR check and a DEX check and you're up there! (Of course, with Thieves it becomes important to liimit climbing of tricky walls...)
Just my two coppers as well.
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Dec 31, 2007 10:04:28 GMT -6
I gotta go along with the above comments, here.
The point isn't to overthink the physical systems of the game; the point is to have fun. Yes, that goes for the players, too.
I know that some players just love knowing all the odds and such, but I maintain that they have been brainwashed by more recent games into believing that THAT is fun. It isn't; it's homework. They can unlearn what they've learned -- and if they're having fun, they'll be willing to do so.
Anyway, that's the view from my window.
|
|
|
Post by dwayanu on Dec 31, 2007 10:24:40 GMT -6
I would also like to read about the adventure itself! It would be interesting if along the way you pointed out some cases in which players felt the lack of a formal "resolution system." It's puzzling to me because even in games such as RuneQuest I usually don't find much need for rules that are not already covered in D&D.
You've got the combat matrix for all sorts of attempts to hit things. You've got the chance to find secret doors for spotting things, and "open doors" for shifting/breaking things. You've got the Charisma table, loyalty and morale ratings and reaction rolls. Initiative is not in the books, but the d6 roll-off as in Chainmail (perhaps modified for high/low Dexterity) is basically assumed -- and you've got the surprise rules. Adapting Saving Throws to different situations is admittedly a bit of an art, but once you set a precedent most players are likely to accept it without fuss. Athletic activities such as jumping around should IMO usually not require rolls in D&D, but something based on Dexterity and/or Strength should fit the bill.
Whatever "system" may be added, it won't be as rigid as "Third Edition" unless you make it so. Most RPGs that make a particular die (or dice) roll and set of bonuses/penalties standard still leave it ultimately up to the GM to set the final probability. There may be many pages of "official" adjustments, but nobody who wants to keep a game moving is going to waste time digging through them.
(A friend and I once went to a RoleMaster game and left after the first half hour was devoted to something like figuring out how much a pack mule could carry. RM offers plenty of invitations to get bogged down, but said friend always ran it briskly.)
It's not possible for a set of rules explicitly to address every possible situation. Copious examples are an aid to the beginner, especially to one with little knowledge on which to draw and little confidence in his own judgement. (That was not a big problem for me at 11 years old, because my peers were similarly ignorant about matters medieval, military or what have you -- and less concerned with that than with getting on with the adventure!)
If your rulings are fair enough and you issue them with confidence, then the players should trust you. In the nature of the game, so much is in your hands that such trust is really essential.
|
|
korgoth
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 323
|
Post by korgoth on Dec 31, 2007 12:07:17 GMT -6
Interesting AAR, James. I too would like to hear about the particulars of the adventure, if you want to do a writeup.
I can see both sides of the issue about resolution, the significance of OD&D, etc. I got some notecards that would fit easily in my white box and wrote up all of my house rules thus far... the rules that 'complete' the game for me (or my version of Supplement X, or however you want to put it). And I find that, stepping back, what I more or less end up with is B/X. Not entirely, but it's close. The task resolution system I go with is "Save vs. Ability", i.e. roll 1d20 under your relevant stat, modified by circumstance if necessary.
Anyway, if OD&D run my way ends up basically being B/X, then why shouldn't I run B/X? Perhaps it is inevitable, since B/X was what I started with and is still my favorite system. Even if I do end up just sticking with B/X, though, I can say that OD&D has become an enormous influence on my thinking about "proper D&D". One thing in particular is the necessity in OD&D of the Ref making the game his own, and not being afraid to monkey with the various rules structures. And of course it drives home what I already knew about Old School D&D, which is that having non-integrated rules structures is actually a virtue.
My longest running campaigns were played using AD&D 1e under a DM who had started with OD&D. Looking back on it, I can see that he ran the game with OD&D sensibilities: he never tried to use initiative or any of that stuff by the book. He just adjudicated things as they came up, and when something went over well he stuck with it. He never complicated things with a bunch of obscure rules... he just used the classes, spells and some of the charts and played fast and loose with the rest. So were we playing AD&D 1e or OD&D? There's a sort of a blurred line there.
Perhaps what I'm developing (even though I'm probably not experienced enough to develop it credibly) is the notion that there's a difference between what you use physically as your "source rules" and the style with which you apply the source rules. I think it's possible, as I said, to run D&D using the AD&D 1e source rules but in an OD&D style. I expect that the same is possible with B/X.
So you could follow the advice above, which seems to be very good, and look for something like the Siege Engine to graft onto the 3 LBBs as source rules, and run them in their native style. Or (and hopefully I won't draw too much fire for this suggestion!) you could find a related set of source rules and run them in an OD&D style. I would offer this strong caveat, however, lest I give the wrong impression: I don't think you can successfully run a New School game in an Old School style. The underlying design philosophy of something like 3E just seems so alien to the philosophy of Old School play that I just don't think it would work.
|
|
|
Post by James Maliszewski on Dec 31, 2007 13:17:48 GMT -6
I have a fair bit of work to do over the next few days, so I probably won't get a chance to write up details of the adventure itself. However, I do thank everyone for their advice and commentary; it's much appreciated.
I will say one thing more clearly now that I didn't in my original post: what bothered my players most was not that OD&D was a rules-light game or that it demanded a fair degree of referee adjudication. Rather, it was that, in their view, OD&D wasn't a complete game without heavy doses of house rules and referee fiat. Remember that these guys know and enjoy old school games and they understand the sensibilities that go with those sorts of games. But the constant comment I heard was that OD&D was a "skeletal" and, given that we have more developed versions of the game (such as Holmes or Moldvay or even Mentzer), why go back to the original? Why not simply use the insights I'd derived from the original and apply them to later, more developed rules?
I had no easy answer to these questions and I think that's why I've probably lost them.
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on Dec 31, 2007 13:46:28 GMT -6
But the constant comment I heard was that OD&D was a "skeletal" and, given that we have more developed versions of the game (such as Holmes or Moldvay or even Mentzer), why go back to the original? Why not simply use the insights I'd derived from the original and apply them to later, more developed rules? Because if you come up with your own ways of doing things, it becomes your own game. It seems to me that there's an assumption lurking around the edges, that "published" somehow equates to "the settled or best standard" - that later versions of the rules came up with the "better" way of doing things, when I don't think that follows at all. These later systems may be more familiar, but they may not do what YOU want. In fact, the appeal of OD&D is that you can work your way towards a game that you want to play - in a sense, hand-crafted, not mass produced - especially if that game is different from what others have done. What I hear from your after-action report is that your players are NOT that familiar with old school games; they've merely included them in their existing filters of more modern ways of playing (and are thus still thinking inside the box). All of that having been said, there are well and good reasons why referees took the three brown booklets and began to come up with house rules, back in 1974 through 1977-78. Arduin is an example of this, so is (in its way) T&T, and so are things like Dungeons and Beavers (IIRC the CalTech gaming mods) - so don't mistake their concern as completely off. Take it, rather, as encouragement to come up with the old school game you always wanted to play. Okay, that's probably a full silver's worth of unasked-for advice, but I hope you understand.
|
|
|
Post by James Maliszewski on Dec 31, 2007 13:58:23 GMT -6
Okay, that's probably a full silver's worth of unasked-for advice, but I hope you understand. Oh, I do and, to a great extent, I share your feelings on this. However, there are only so many lengths to which I'll go to convince people. I've been trying very hard not to come across to my players as either a zealot or a One-True-Way preacher and, too often I fear, players of older games come across that way. I don't mean that as a criticism so much as an acknowledgment that the enthusiasm we all feel for OD&D isn't always interpreted by others in the same way as we intend it. Goodness knows there have been occasions even on these boards when I've looked at some post or other by someone else and thought, "He's crazy." Just imagine what someone who isn't as immersed in this stuff must think. I don't intend to give up but I am going to take seriously the comments of my players. My attitude has always been that there are no false perceptions about game play but there are false interpretations of those perceptions. So, I want to understand first why my players perceived OD&D as they did. Once I get that, I might -- might -- be able to make adjustments to deal with them. Or I might not. I won't know one way or the other till I demonstrate good faith in my players, take their criticisms to heart, and go from there.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2007 16:33:22 GMT -6
Don't get too disheartened yet, jamesm; I think you should follow grodog's advice: give it a few more games & see if the exposure helps. When it comes to the stat checks, Fin has a good method (which I use as well); it's simple yet effective. My R.C./OD&D hybrid campaign that I run is really the 1st R.P.G. game the missus has played, so she took to it really well (she tried 3rd ed. a couple of times, but didn't like it). My other players are old ( pre-school & elementary school) friends of mine that have played many different games over the years, so, being they had a lot of opinions on gaming in general, it took awhile for them to get acclimated (1 was a die-hard 3rd ed. gal). Once they did, though, they never looked back. Give it some time; they'll more than likely come around...
|
|
|
Post by dwayanu on Jan 2, 2008 15:07:57 GMT -6
I reckon that having set mechanisms that are basically second nature may be better than spending too much time and effort on improvisation or tinkering. I've been an "offender" in that regard (playing rules designer when the time would better be spent designing and running dungeons). I'm back to the point of finding OD&D a pretty transparent medium, of being "in tune" with it. If something from Holmes or Moldvay (or wherever) rocks your boat, then go for it.
One point of going back to OD&D, especially to the first three books, is to get out of a rut of too much dependence on rulesbooks. That of course begs the question of how much is too much, which you must answer for yourself.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2008 20:18:53 GMT -6
Here's my 2 electrum pieces of advice...
It sounds like your players wanted to know how tasks would be resolved. Maybe a cheat sheet with the rules you are going to be using would help them better enjoy the game. They sound like the player I am...rather than rely on GM fiat I would like to know what my chance is to succeed or fail.
Example Cheat Sheet. 1. Combat A. Initiative - d6 per group, high goes first. B. To-Hit - Use THACO 2. Task Resolution - Roll 3d6 under stat + level (if class is applicable) + 2 racial modifier (if applicable). Hard tasks use 4d6. 3. Hit Points - Max hit points at 1st level. Reroll 1s or 2s at succeeding levels. 4. etc...
Or something like that. This lets the players know that a structure exists and the game is not all about GM fiat.
Good luck!
|
|