Responses to a Misleading Review of OD&D

[aldarron]

I just read an interesting Review of OD&D that I would characterize as misleading and even scathing. The author basically concludes there's no good reason to want to play it over other versions. Naturally I thought of responding to all sorts of things they say, but I only sent them a note that the statement they made that most people in the OD&D community are folks who started playing it in the 70s and never left is nonsense. Instead I thought it might be more productive to bring it up with the community here and start a conversation. What are some points of the essay that stand out to you and what would you say differently?

[Greyharp]

It reads to me as if it's been written by someone who started their gaming life with 3rd Edition or later, probably has a poor grasp of AD&D, and has never actually played a game of OD&D. The review might sound convincing to others with the same background in gaming, but just comes off as ignorant and quite disrespectful to both the creators and old school gamers, who could easily give more than "an exact mechanical or even conceptual reason to play the original game". What a pity, such a missed opportunity to shed some light on the original game for younger gamers.

I have to admit I found the cluelessness of the review so annoying that I struggled not to skip whole sections of it. My annoyance at the OD&D review is mollified somewhat by a statement the reviewer makes in the AD&D section where they say "It really takes a true master to run a good 1st edition AD&D game". Really? My inexperienced teenager self never thought so. Now I'm puffing my chest out and feeling a bit better about things. 

[tedopon]

To be honest, it reminds me a lot of peoples' descriptions of post-2e D&D around places similar to here. A passive understanding of "how things work" and light criticism of how they don't line up with the author's own tastes.
I'm no fan of D&D after 3rd edition, but I understand why 4e tried what it did and why a lot of people like 5e, they're just not to my taste.
The only real gripe I have with the entire passage is the statement "I think most gamers today would probably want more mechanics than this game offers, both DM’s and players alike." In my experience, across age, socioeconomic, ethnic and political differences, most people tend to prefer games with fewer rules as long as the rules used are outlined and/or interpreted clearly. OD&D isn't really Ready Made to fit in that paradigm. It is written in such an archaic style that it tricks a lot of people into thinking it is more complex than it really is, missing huge chunks or both. In reality, it's a pretty simple game especially when compared to newer versions of D&D. The thing is that even the sparse game that is OD&D when you've made sense of it is more than enough to get by on. Modern games have a tendency to overspecify and it is tiring when all I want to do is pretend I'm throwing fireballs.

[Finarvyn]

I think a lot of people who started with later editions look back at OD&D and call it "unplayable" and I assume it's because later editions filled in some of the gaps that weren't explained at the time. Even places like Dragonsfoot have AD&D posters who often refer to OD&D as "unplayable" and I think they really mean it, but some will admit that they never actually tried to play it. In that way, the review just parrots a lot of the things that gamers are already saying.

For those of us who played OD&D back in the day, it was certainly playable. A decent number of modern gamers have looked at my copies of OD&D and marveled at the simplicity of the rules set and said that a number of things actually make more sense by reading OD&D. I'd say the review is just another case of someone who doesn't know OD&D just repeating stuff they have heard from others.

[dukeofchutney]

Most reviews of rpg products are bad in the sense that they tell you more about the reviewers taste than any reasonable appraisal of the products quality. You do get this in other games but rpgs are the worst because they are harder to understand and play. I do think you can appraise a game against its own design goals and whether it actually provides the table with everything they need to play. Most rpgs lean heavily on the gm to be gud and carry the system. I don’t think this reviewer understands any of this, they are simply expressing their taste.

[dwayanu]

I was not aware of that 2013 reprint in a wood box, which might have tempted me to give WotC $150 of my money!

“There are retro-clones available today like Swords & Wizardry …” seems to me to indicate the writer’s real bottom line, or at least that’s my charitable reading.

If memory serves, even before all the supplements were out, Gary Gygax himself was lamenting that D&D had been rushed into publication and was bruiting the undertaking of the revision that would come to be called Advanced D&D.

The 1981 B/X edition not only impressed me as a better recommendation to novices than the white-box Collectors Edition — which was soon to be discontinued and fetch collector’s item prices — but also became my own favorite starting point.

It was essentially a tidied up presentation of the 1974 game plus select bits from Supplement I. Differences in detail mostly seemed to me improvement. They were scarcely notable given the much greater variations from campaign to campaign in the OD&D era, and even in those early years of AD&D.

I can’t honestly quibble with the assessment that retro-clones or semi-clones are in the same category.

“I think most gamers today would probably want more mechanics than this game offers, both DM’s and players alike.” I think so as well. On the flip side, there’s stuff that’s probably too overwrought for most (e.g., the combat elaborations in Blackmoor and Eldritch Wizardy).

Besides being “free as in free beer” and using some modernizations such as ascending AC, Basic Fantasy includes defined methods for treating more situations. It still seems to me closer to OD&D than Castles & Crusades is to AD&D.

Heck, if someone really wants to go the oddball route of ignoring the “Alternative” combat system and using Chainmail instead, I’m sure there are OSR works that make it easier.

[aldarron]

Jan 26, 2023 10:43:21 GMT -6 dwayanu said:

...Heck, if someone really wants to go the oddball route of ignoring the “Alternative” combat system and using Chainmail instead, I’m sure there are OSR works that make it easier.

Heh, yeah I wrote one and so did Jason (theGreyElf). You can find links and discussion boards to both on this forum.

[aldarron]

Jan 25, 2023 23:17:45 GMT -6 tedopon said:

... It is written in such an archaic style that it tricks a lot of people into thinking it is more complex than it really is, missing huge chunks or both. In reality, it's a pretty simple game especially when compared to newer versions of D&D. The thing is that even the sparse game that is OD&D when you've made sense of it is more than enough to get by on.

For sure, and I would argue that while individual sections are usually fairly simple and straightforward once you understand them, overall OD&D is not a rules-light system at all. I mean the 3lbb's cover a hell of a lot of ground - everything from aerial warfare to treasure generation to evasion and pursuit to building castles and hiring specialists in addition to all the usual stuff about making characters and fighting monsters. Topically, it is a very comprehensive game - nothing like an actual rules light offering like say Microlight20 for example.

[dwayanu]

The reviewer makes a plain error in claiming that damage dice in combat depend on character class, not weapon. By Volume 1 rules, everyone deals 1d6; by Supplement rules, it varies by weapon.

Elsewhere, I’ve seen the claim that Outdoor Survival is necessary equipment, which it’s not.

I can see how people can get confused about things, especially from a single cursory reading.

Although monsters and spells are written chiefly with combat in mind, ground combat is actually a small part of the basic procedural material. (There’s more about naval and air.) Indeed, one might say it’s a notably neglected part if you don’t also have Chainmail. Supp. I gives missile ranges, but turn order and initiative remain a lacuna until the overly complicated treatment in Supp. III.

There’s a lot of formalism for travel in the underworld and wilderness, and things such as recruitment and information gathering in town are also covered.

The review notes the presence of those in B/X, but not in OD&D or AD&D. There follows an eccentric definition of “adventure game” versus “role playing game” based on that and what’s missing.

(I note that it’s also missing from AD&D 1E unless you turn to the late-period Survival Guides, by which time the D&D Gazetteers had already provided an array of “non-weapon proficiencies.”)

What’s missing from the modern perspective is set rules for various low-level physical actions. Part of the new school seems almost to want a defined toss for every mundane undertaking (unless you’ve got a ‘feat’ that allows an exception).

An old-school handbook is not likely to get into D&D 4E’s level of detail as to climbing a rope: quantified factors for knotted or not, and how many feet from a wall.

That has some relation to the terminology in computer games. Computer Adventure games focus on the player’s choices, whereas computer RPGs focus on development of player-facing character ratings.

[aldarron]

>>>" there were no skills, feats or special powers"

Really? I guess if you mean there was no section titles called any of those things then yes, but isn't Turn Undead a special power? Isn't save at four levels above your levels above you own a "feat", Infravision?, Immolation?, etc. There are all sorts of "special powers" in OD&D, not to mention skills like detect sloping passages etc., and of course Thief skills if you play them.

>>>"the game was very procedural at times as well bringing it much closer to what we could call an adventure game rather than a role-playing game today."

Isn't Role Playing done outside of the rules? I mean what sort of "Role Play" rules are being asked for here? Players who play dwarves must speak in a squeaky voice and constantly tug at their ears? What I'm asking here is how is 5e or any D&D edition, by the core rules, any more or less of a roleplaying game than OD&D? In fact I would strongly argue that the action economy of 5e makes it play far more "procedurally" than OD&D or classic D&D for that matter. One of the main reasons I prefer OD&D is that encourages immersion and Role Playing, not the opposite!

>>>"Something I don’t doubt purist would wholeheartedly disagree with, most who played it leaned on the adjudication over structure element of the game."

I'm confused by this sentence. "Purists" - there are none as the game encourages house rules - would certainly argue in favor rulings over rules, because that is part of the rules. It sounds like he is saying we "enthusiasts" (lets say) would argue the opposite. Weird.

>>>"free-form role-playing where rules are more often improvised than stated, this might be a reason to try"

Free-form rolepalying? Isn't that the opposite of the procedural accusation above? They don't seems to see their own inherent contradition.

On the other hand if they mean the rules themselves are free-form, well, as I said earlier, that's pretty much non-sense. There certainly are free-form games out there but OD&D is anything but rules-free and certainly not a game I would recommend for someone into the free-kriegspiel experience. Sure, there is a metric ton of less rules than anything published after 1980 with a D&D label on it, but to consider a 60+ page rulebook structureless is bizarre.

>>>" unlike many of the versions that followed, the OSR community existing today that plays this game is made up predominantly of people who played the original way back in the 70’s."

Well, I mean there is Marv, and a couple others who have graced this board from time to time like Rob Kuntz and Greg Svenson, but come on. What percentage of the members of this forum can say they started playing with the 3lbb's back in the '70's? 5%? maybe 10? Might be fun to take a poll.

>>>"Original D&D is to RPG’s what cave paintings are to art, an interesting historical reference but not exactly something that is going to teach or introduce modern gamers to anything that hasn’t been done better in games that followed."

NOPE OD&D highlights where later editions went wrong and is enlightening in hundreds of ways as to the possibilities of the RPG experience.

As an aside, OD&D is a "Modern" game by definition, the word he should be using is contemporary or current or recent, but that's a pet peeve.

[dicebro]

Here you go:
1. “Contrary to popular belief, past editions of the game as compared to modern games are not some old relics to be discarded and forgotten. Any one of these old editions can create amazing table experiences and I would argue are worth exploring even today.”

I agree.

2. “(T)he reality is they (Gygax & Arneson) were just a couple of nerds that like to make games.”

Just a couple of regular joe schmuck losers like the rest of us, eh? Geez, give them a little credit dude. After all, they were merely FIRST to publish a genre of game that had never been published before, as in all of our known history on planet Earth.

3. “The original game…of all the editions that followed this one would probably be the most alien to modern gamers.”

I agree. And something needs to be done about it, brothers and sisters!


4. “Notably by modern standards, I think most would view some of the mechanics as odd at absolute best”
Seriously? 5e players don’t roll dice to find out whether a character succeeds or fails? Or maybe it’s that they are forced to make so many die rolls making an expedition run about 4 times longer than it should? Seriously, I have spent way too much time waiting for players to make up their minds about how to proceed during a 5e encounter.

5. “For example, the damage characters could deal in combat was based on their class, not their weapon, there were no skills, feats or special powers and while there were 3 classes in the game with a 4th coming along later (Thief), for the most part, the game was very close to a completely rule-less system depending very heavily on DM adjudication, yet the game was very procedural at times as well bringing it much closer to what we could call an adventure game rather than a role-playing game today.”

Holy smokes, can you say “run on sentence”? And I thought my writing sucked. But this is a published journalist?! Dude, you gotta grasp the concept that the three little booklets were a series of suggestions for referees. It was more of a kit for creating your own game than it was a stone tablet of laws that must be followed. Your last sentence fragment makes little sense.


6. “As such you don’t have to go through the trouble of hunting down original copies; versions of this game that are effectively replications of the original rules are available in print today through sites like RPG Drive Thru.”

So are pdf’s of the original rules: www.drivethrurpg.com/product/28306/ODD-Dungeons--Dragons-Original-Edition-0e
Doing enough research there Tiger?

7. “I would be hard-pressed to give an exact mechanical or even conceptual reason to play the original game. I suppose you could say that if you like free-form role-playing where rules are more often improvised than stated, this might be a reason to try this one but I think most gamers today would probably want more mechanics than this game offers, both DM’s and players alike.”

Speak for yourself. Makes me wonder how awful it must be to play at your table. Nobody trusts the referee, so they have thick rulebooks ready to pull out in case the game needs to be stopped for a mechanics refresher. I bet you’ve never played OD&D.

8. “I think the only real reason to try this original classic is just to get an understanding of the history of D&D, where it started, where it came from, and how the design evolved.”

Yeah, that’s the only reason why anyone would ever consider playing it. Because obviously you can’t have fun without bigger, slicker, scientifically precise, expensive, “updated” rule books. I feel sorry for this author.

9. “the OSR community existing today that plays this game is made up predominantly of people who played the original way back in the 70’s.”

Where did you get this so-called fact? Did you conduct a poll of the “OSR community existing today” (and What does that even mean?).

10. “Original D&D is to RPG’s what cave paintings are to art, an interesting historical reference but not exactly something that is going to teach or introduce modern gamers to anything that hasn’t been done better in games that followed.”

Three words: Bull and shirt.

Well, there’s my opinion of this article.

[DungeonDevil]

Most reviews of rpg products are bad in the sense that they tell you more about the reviewers taste than any reasonable appraisal of the products quality.

That's true for pretty much any review of anything ever.

Now, let's dive in:

Now modern gamers are going to play modern games, it’s natural as you enter the hobby, you go for the latest and greatest which is not only expected but recommended.

Someone (a young person, for example) can certainly enter the hobby with any older edition. There is no hard and fast rule that says that, to begin learning of D&D you MUST begin with the latest edition. That's utter nonsense! Now, having said that, beginning with OD&D may pose some problems and may be more difficult for a person who does not have the invaluable mentorship of an experienced player, and perhaps harder for one that has not a shred of background with historical miniatures wargaming, but it's not impossible. (Ken St. Andre's lack of a wargaming background gave him some problems when first reading the OD&D books, and that led to his creation of Tunnels & Trolls.)

Many of the ideas that would evolve from this 1st version of D&D were very rough in this original edition and while I would like to tell you that every edition of the game is worth exploring, this one included, of all the editions that followed this one would probably be the most alien to modern gamers.

I'm assuming "alien" means "referee adjudication" as opposed to "the books as final authority", and "mandatory, preparatory referee contribution" over "everything previously perfected and finished, minutely catalogued and itemised in huge, comprehensive tomes".

the game was very close to a completely rule-less system depending very heavily on DM adjudication

See above response. I don't understand where he gets this "completely rule-less" impression, as the three LBBs are nothing but rules. The New School philosophy is obviously "More is better than less" when it comes to explicitly-detailed rules.

Today there is still a fan base for this original style of play which was very much narrative storytelling focused.

And what is wrong with narrative-based RPGing? He thinks that rules-minimal is mutually exclusive of combat-heavy gaming?

sites like RPG Drive Thru.

Ahem. You've got it backwards, mate. If I hadn't already been buying things from them for about 20 years I'd make that mistake too.

I would be hard-pressed to give an exact mechanical or even conceptual reason to play the original game. I suppose you could say that if you like free-form role-playing where rules are more often improvised than stated, this might be a reason to try this one but I think most gamers today would probably want more mechanics than this game offers, both DM’s and players alike. If free form is your thing, you could just as well ignore rules that exist in your game than play one where they are missing when you want or need them.

"more often improvised than stated" is called DM FIAT and is a virtue -- not a bug, nor defect. I'd like to believe that 99% of the time a problem which arises in play can be resolved by the Referee's common sense, and not necessarily by having to thumb through rulebooks or even roll dice.

I think the only real reason to try this original classic is just to get an understanding of the history of D&D, where it started, where it came from, and how the design evolved.

Okay, fair enough. There's no shame in being an RPG Historian. Know your roots!

this game is made up predominantly of people who played the original way back in the 70’s.

Wrong. I started with Moldvay Basic right after it came out long ago. Only later in the early 2000's did I discover OD&D (and Chainmail), to my surprise, as all I knew of in my early days were Moldvay Basic and AD&D's trinity of hardcovers (and a few modules). Only after 3rd Edition Burnout in the early 'aughts did I voluntarily seek out the editions of the past.

Original D&D is just too far back to be relevant nearly 50 years after its release.

*facepalm* Obviously the reviewer is very young and probably doesn't even remember the 90's. Euclid's Elements is pretty far back as well, but your Geometry class would be poorer without it!

[dwayanu]

By “the game was very procedural at times as well bringing it much closer to what we could call an adventure game rather than a role-playing game today,” I think the reviewer had especially in mind the formalism for wilderness expeditions.

Probably many people would reckon GDW’s En Garde! (1975) not a proper RPG, but an “adventure game” in a sense similar to what this reviewer seems to mean. EG! really does present as a set of choices similar to a board game. I suppose one could read OD&D that way, but the more wide-open interpretation that has prevailed is evidently what Gygax & Arneson intended.

By similar token, some folks might say a CRPG is not a proper role-playing game because the player is limited to options the programmers anticipated.

(Computer Adventure games — at least in the original text-based form parsing close to natural language — leave it to the player to discover what one can do, rather than presenting an explicit menu.)

[dwayanu]

I did start playing with the LBBs, in the sense that the DM had them; all I had was what the DM told me.

As a DM myself, I started with Holmes. People in the early years who started with _only_ the LBBs — no “oral tradition” to guide them — certainly had a lot to sort out, the more so if they also had no wargame campaign experience to fill some of the gaps.

People picking them up today already informed by later editions are prone to retro-fit those assumptions. Part of the OSR has been people trying to interpret only the actual text. Sometimes that’s clearly different from AD&D and onward; sometimes it’s unclear enough to admit of interpretation that may be odder than what Gygax intended.

What he did intend in those early years was that people should make of it their own games, as Arneson had done with Chainmail and then he himself had done with what Arneson developed for the Blackmoor campaign.

Most people are not up to that task. Seeing the game’s appeal in concept to a rapidly growing market for whom it was in practice often too frustrating, Gygax and company set out to produce a more accessible presentation.

[boggit]

Jan 26, 2023 10:43:21 GMT -6 dwayanu said:

I was not aware of that 2013 reprint in a wood box, which might have tempted me to give WotC $150 of my money!

Oh, you did not miss anything. The 2013 reprint was an utter train wreck, with completely tone deaf modern-looking covers on the booklets and a very plastic feel to all components. Style-wise, I'd rank it below even the AD&D 1st edition reprints published in the same era.

[Starbeard]

At the time you could even still get originals for the same price or less. Though not after including all supplements, to be fair. The reprints had all the supplements, didn't they?