Getting Started With OD&D

[blindaudelay]

I kicked off my blog the other day with a post to help new players enter the world of OD&D: thefantasticisfact.blogspot.com/2023/12/getting-started-with-od.html

I hope it is helpful to anyone looking to dip their feet into the pool.

[waysoftheearth]

Wow, thanks for the shoutout to DD. I am humbled.

May I suggest you could add links to the free DD downloads here and/or the DD4 hypertext online here (for anyone interested to have a peek at no cost)?


edit:

p.s. I'm not sure that OD&D really is simple; one could argue it is incredibly deep and intricate.

I think what you're prolly implying is that--considering its level of sophistication--OD&D remains accessible. Players can get started without reading a ton of rules or knowing everything up front; they can just start and figure stuff out along the way!

[blindaudelay]

Dec 15, 2023 16:13:15 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

Wow, thanks for the shoutout to DD. I am humbled.

May I suggest you could add links to the free DD downloads here and/or the DD4 hypertext online here (for anyone interested to have a peek at no cost)?


edit:

p.s. I'm not sure that OD&D really is simple; one could argue it is incredibly deep and intricate.

I think what you're prolly implying is that--considering its level of sophistication--OD&D remains accessible. Players can get started without reading a ton of rules or knowing everything up front; they can just start and figure stuff out along the way!

I directed them to the Immersive Ink website, but I will certainly add those links — good idea. And yes, I'm inclined to agree: "accessible" is really the better word than "simple," here. I was thinking of it just in comparison to 5e and PF2e, but accessibility is the ticket.

[Finarvyn]

A great article and I enjoyed reading it. A nice set of ideas and I added it to my bookmarks for later reference.

However, I'm sort of bummed that my name no longer seems to be associated with the S&W:WB rules. Charlie did some additions and improved layout to create FMAG, but he built it 90% from my WB rules (which are still a free download on Matt's websites) and nobody seems to remember that. Same thing has happened with other WB spinoffs, where I have contacted folks and asked why my name isn't associated with their product and Matt's is; typically they seem surprised that someone other than Matt wrote WB.

[chicagowiz]

Dec 16, 2023 8:22:59 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

A great article and I enjoyed reading it. A nice set of ideas and I added it to my bookmarks for later reference.

However, I'm sort of bummed that my name no longer seems to be associated with the S&W:WB rules. Charlie did some additions and improved layout to create FMAG, but he built it 90% from my WB rules (which are still a free download on Matt's websites) and nobody seems to remember that. Same thing has happened with other WB spinoffs, where I have contacted folks and asked why my name isn't associated with their product and Matt's is; typically they seem surprised that someone other than Matt wrote WB.

We remember. And everytime I post about it, it's your name.

[waysoftheearth]

For full transparency, DD V1 (2012) was a collaboration primarily between myself, Cameron Dubeers (Wobbley Goblin Press, aka Piper on these boards) and John Adams (Brave Halfling Press)--but others were involved too (esp. Greyharp on these boards). I took stewardship as of 17th March, 2013 (shortly after the release of V2). The single volume V4 depicted in your post was first published Sept 2014.

Dec 15, 2023 20:58:27 GMT -6 blindaudelay said:

I directed them to the Immersive Ink website, but I will certainly add those links — good idea.

Mmmm, your link points to my woefully neglected blog. It would be difficult to find anything useful there... prolly best point to the downloads page here

[blindaudelay]

Dec 16, 2023 8:22:59 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

A great article and I enjoyed reading it. A nice set of ideas and I added it to my bookmarks for later reference.

However, I'm sort of bummed that my name no longer seems to be associated with the S&W:WB rules. Charlie did some additions and improved layout to create FMAG, but he built it 90% from my WB rules (which are still a free download on Matt's websites) and nobody seems to remember that. Same thing has happened with other WB spinoffs, where I have contacted folks and asked why my name isn't associated with their product and Matt's is; typically they seem surprised that someone other than Matt wrote WB.

I will rectify this oversight as well as incorporate the DD links later tonight.

I appreciate the kind words and feedback, everyone. My next post will be on the various neoclonee, most likely, like WotRP, SVoZ, Operation White Box, etc.

[Piper]

Thanks for the mention WotE.

The early versions of DD were a team effort, yes, but I love what Ways has done with it since we gave him full proprietorship. It went from the rather generic 1975 era clone* I had imagined when I began the project to something that truly stands out from the crowd.

*A generic clone because Delving Deeper was originally envisioned as a supporting rule set for modules Brave Halfling intended to publish. John was concerned other original edition rules sets might not always be available.

[Finarvyn]

I wish there was an OD&D game with the success of OSE. I think that the problem is that there are too many variations of OD&D (LBB box only, box plus Greyhawk, whatever) that it tends to divide the fan base too much. OD&D is such a fun game, but nobody really seems to know about it and those who do keep saying it's impossible to understand.

[rhialto]

As a relatively new enamorant of OD&D the lack of an OSE-like version is a virtue to me, as I can interpret the ambiguities or fill the gaps with my own rules. Consulting other interpretations is part of the enjoyment, but the larger part of the enjoyment is taking inspiration from OD&D and it's variations and making "My OD&D". And I don't mean this in any impolite way, but given all the variations, what would "an OD&D game with the success of OSE" be? It seems a true dilemma, to somehow consolidate all the variations, while maintaining all the ambiguities and gaps.

[blindaudelay]

Dec 21, 2023 8:39:11 GMT -6 rhialto said:

As a relatively new enamorant of OD&D the lack of an OSE-like version is a virtue to me, as I can interpret the ambiguities or fill the gaps with my own rules. Consulting other interpretations is part of the enjoyment, but the larger part of the enjoyment is taking inspiration from OD&D and it's variations and making "My OD&D". And I don't mean this in any impolite way, but given all the variations, what would "an OD&D game with the success of OSE" be? It seems a true dilemma, to somehow consolidate all the variations, while maintaining all the ambiguities and gaps.

I'm pretty sure Finarvyn is pointing to how widely OSE is played in OSR spaces, not necessarily yearning for something as clean and polished as OSE. The closest we've come is probably Marcia's Fantastic Medieval Campaigns simply due to its reorganization and how closely it hews to the original books.

[ThrorII]

Dec 21, 2023 5:23:24 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

I wish there was an OD&D game with the success of OSE. I think that the problem is that there are too many variations of OD&D (LBB box only, box plus Greyhawk, whatever) that it tends to divide the fan base too much. OD&D is such a fun game, but nobody really seems to know about it and those who do keep saying it's impossible to understand.

Would you consider Swords & Wizardry Complete a pretty good (and popular) rendition of OD&D +Supplements?

[chicagowiz]

Dec 21, 2023 20:42:28 GMT -6 ThrorII said:

Dec 21, 2023 5:23:24 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

I wish there was an OD&D game with the success of OSE. I think that the problem is that there are too many variations of OD&D (LBB box only, box plus Greyhawk, whatever) that it tends to divide the fan base too much. OD&D is such a fun game, but nobody really seems to know about it and those who do keep saying it's impossible to understand.

Would you consider Swords & Wizardry Complete a pretty good (and popular) rendition of OD&D +Supplements?

I'd have to agree - at the time, S&W was very widely played/supported, though it seems to have fallen out of favor for the other more-marketed takes on 1974.

[captainjapan]

I may have asked this before: If the purpose of a retroclone is to support third party adventures and campaign settings and expansions to the out-of-print TSR games, can S&W Complete be considered to be the most most important OD&D retroclone? Is there any other ruleset with a higher adoption rate among independent creators?

Swords & Wizardry must be THE retroclone of choice according to this metric. Or is it?

[Finarvyn]

Dec 21, 2023 20:42:28 GMT -6 ThrorII said:

Dec 21, 2023 5:23:24 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

I wish there was an OD&D game with the success of OSE. I think that the problem is that there are too many variations of OD&D (LBB box only, box plus Greyhawk, whatever) that it tends to divide the fan base too much. OD&D is such a fun game, but nobody really seems to know about it and those who do keep saying it's impossible to understand.

Would you consider Swords & Wizardry Complete a pretty good (and popular) rendition of OD&D +Supplements?

Good and complete? Yes. Popular in the order of magnitude of OSE? No.

Dec 22, 2023 7:56:33 GMT -6 chicagowiz said:

Dec 21, 2023 20:42:28 GMT -6 ThrorII said:

Would you consider Swords & Wizardry Complete a pretty good (and popular) rendition of OD&D +Supplements?

I'd have to agree - at the time, S&W was very widely played/supported, though it seems to have fallen out of favor for the other more-marketed takes on 1974.

Agreed. I don't hear a lot of chatter about S&W any more. Maybe I frequent the wrong hangout spots?

Dec 22, 2023 9:22:56 GMT -6 captainjapan said:

I may have asked this before: If the purpose of a retroclone is to support third party adventures and campaign settings and expansions to the out-of-print TSR games, can S&W Complete be considered to be the most most important OD&D retroclone? Is there any other ruleset with a higher adoption rate among independent creators?

Swords & Wizardry must be THE retroclone of choice according to this metric. Or is it?

Again, it certainly seems to have a decent following and a good share of the OD&D Retroclone market, but I don't feel like it has the drawing power of OSE or OSRIC or some of the other heavy hitters. On the other hand, maybe OSE is just the current flavor of choice and maybe soon it will fade away.

[rhialto]

Popularity will wax and wane. It could be OSE's demographic is absolutely larger than OD&D's, too (any variant, or maybe all of them combined). I don't travel in OSE circles, but the various OD&D variants, sites, blogs, podcasts, videos, etc. seems to be high to me (at least, sufficient that I have a backlog of material to get through). While there might not be any single OSE-like version for OD&D, there does still seem to be a lot of OD&D interest? Maybe it's just me with years of catching up to do...

[blindaudelay]

Spitballing here, but there seems to have been an uptick in interest in OD&D over the past few years (see for instance Wolves Upon the Coast, Fantastic Medieval Campaigns, the upcoming Fever Swamp from Melsonian Arts Council). But OD&D in general doesn't hold a candle to OSE's popularity in part because OSE (read: the most vanilla, polished reiteration of B/X imaginable) has essentially been the "lingua franca" of the OSR sever since B/X clones like Labyrinth Lord, Basic Fantasy RPG, and Lamentations of the Flame Princess dominated the scene for years.

I hope that with the game's 50th anniversary next year, as well as Jon Peterson's upcoming release, OD&D will capture many new imaginations next year.

[rhialto]

Dec 22, 2023 18:35:00 GMT -6 blindaudelay said:

I hope that with the game's 50th anniversary next year, as well as Jon Peterson's upcoming release, OD&D will capture many new imaginations next year.

So my answer would be to point them to Swords & Wizardry Complete then, as the most fulsome and faithful version of OD&D (3LBB + some supplements, with options presented for various rules). But I'm certainly no OD&D scholar, so there might be a better option?

[chicagowiz]

Again, it certainly seems to have a decent following and a good share of the OD&D Retroclone market, but I don't feel like it has the drawing power of OSE or OSRIC or some of the other heavy hitters. On the other hand, maybe OSE is just the current flavor of choice and maybe soon it will fade away.

I think you hit the nail on the head - marketing/timing and online buzz.

TBH, I think OSRIC's staying power is mainly because it's the only 1e game in town that was decently marketed. I didn't see quite the same for Adv LL, and there's really nothing else?

It seems like the retroclones do indeed go through a cycle. There could be a new B/X clone in two years and we'll be asking whateverhappenedto OSE!

I think it's really cool that folks keep finding new, interesting ways to reskin the grand old lady. I think I've hit the point, for me, where I see these new versions and I shrug, and go back to playing what I've been playing for these years now. Those new versions will have their 15 min, and someone else will come along and reskin the thing and here they'll go again.

[bat]

What I myself am seeing in offline situations is dissatisfaction with 5e and more and more people, especially young people, turning towards the OSR, mostly because of the complication and time commitments involved. I am not mentioning this to kick up any edition wars, I have always advocated that any game a group enjoys is perfect for them. That said, I run games in public a lot and CONSTANTLY have people wanting to play. Or I wear a D&D shirt while out in the wild or make a comment while teaching Mythologies on campus and immediately people are interested. I myself try to steer people towards Barbarians of Lemuria, S&W Core or White box, Blueholme or any B/X variant (not really OSE as it seems very limited and a bit all over the place to me). And with my blog hitting the 3000th post in a couple of days I have limitless spells, monsters, magic items and deities to bring into a game.

[waysoftheearth]

Dec 23, 2023 7:09:29 GMT -6 rhialto said:

So my answer would be to point them to Swords & Wizardry Complete then, as the most fulsome and faithful version of OD&D (3LBB + some supplements, with options presented for various rules). But I'm certainly no OD&D scholar, so there might be a better option?

Another answer or perspective could be that S&W Complete (and, implicitly, various other renderings of OD&D "complete") is potentially too heavy duty for:
a) the total newbie, and/or
b) the jaded 5e (thru 1e) player looking for something simpler.

For these folks, perhaps 3LBB D&D (and, implicitly, various other renderings of OD&D "whitebox") is the better fit?


edit: p.s. I have nothing whatever against S&W Complete. Just offering up alternative options

[chicagowiz]

Dec 27, 2023 2:57:00 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

Dec 23, 2023 7:09:29 GMT -6 rhialto said:

So my answer would be to point them to Swords & Wizardry Complete then, as the most fulsome and faithful version of OD&D (3LBB + some supplements, with options presented for various rules). But I'm certainly no OD&D scholar, so there might be a better option?

Another answer or perspective could be that S&W Complete (and, implicitly, various other renderings of OD&D "complete") is potentially too heavy duty for:
a) the total newbie, and/or
b) the jaded 5e (thru 1e) player looking for something simpler.

For these folks, perhaps 3LBB D&D (and, implicitly, various other renderings of OD&D "whitebox") is the better fit?


edit: p.s. I have nothing whatever against S&W Complete. Just offering up alternative options

For me, for those two audiences, it would be Fin's S&W Whitebox.

[rhialto]

So I admit my "3LBB only" level is just 1 or 2: I'm aware of several, but haven't really internalized what differentiates SW:WB from WB:FMAG, Delving Deeper, Iron Falcon, Platemail, etc. But I agree, SW:WB (or WB:FMAG) for a simpler entry into OD&D.

[waysoftheearth]

For me, the appeal of 3LBB OD&D is more about brevity than simplicity.
Arguably, it's equally complex but less specified than the later editions. It is certainly briefer! and that leaves more elbow room for a ref to carve out their own unique campaign play-style... which means their own creation

[Finarvyn]

Dec 27, 2023 15:20:08 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

For me, the appeal of 3LBB OD&D is more about brevity than simplicity.
Arguably, it's equally complex but less specified than the later editions. It is certainly briefer! and that leaves more elbow room for a ref to carve out their own unique campaign play-style... which means their own creation

This. And another thing I like about actual OD&D is the writing style. I know that some find it confusing, but for me it's just fun to read. I tried to replicate something like that flavor in my S&W:WB text, but I'm sure it's nothing compared to the original.

In general I feel like later editions (and the clones) tended to gain clarity but lose that quirky quality. A trade off.

Also, you are correct about the value of brevity. Watching Matt Colville talking about "two books at four hundred pages each" and seeing him hand-wring about how so much will need to be left out in order to keep to that 800-page cap ... well it's a different world than it was 50 years ago. Each of the original three LBB were something like 36 pages (one might have been 40) and a 36-page pamphlet translates to somewhere around 18 pages, printed two-sided. So the original boxed set would be maybe 60 pages, which is similar (I think) to Metamorphosis Alpha or Holmes Basic. Add in the 4 supplements (which were, if I recall correctly, thicker) and you're under 200 pages.

Brevity is a nice thing.

[rhialto]

Fair point about brevity not necessarily equating to simplicity. From a design perspective the brevity is simpler for me to make my own OD&D though (rather than someone else's interpretation of what "OD&D" means). I hadn't thought about the sheer pleasure of the prose, rather than my focus on mechanics, so that is also a good point. Well, I guess I know what I'll be re-reading shortly...

[doublejig2]

Pleasure of the prose - right on!

[jeffb]

Dec 16, 2023 8:22:59 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

A great article and I enjoyed reading it. A nice set of ideas and I added it to my bookmarks for later reference.

However, I'm sort of bummed that my name no longer seems to be associated with the S&W:WB rules. Charlie did some additions and improved layout to create FMAG, but he built it 90% from my WB rules (which are still a free download on Matt's websites) and nobody seems to remember that. Same thing has happened with other WB spinoffs, where I have contacted folks and asked why my name isn't associated with their product and Matt's is; typically they seem surprised that someone other than Matt wrote WB.

That's BS.

And I certainly associate WB with you. But I was there at the beginning.

[Finarvyn]

Well, Matt does have the company and the overall product line and has been a big part of the OSR movement. I can see why folks might see him as the face of all things S&W.

[bat]

I agree with jeffb and confession time: I am hellbender as in the 'art director' on SW WB. I took the job thinking that the artists would be paid and then they weren't (except for the cover artist) and I was furious and ghosted Matt. Out of aggravation I created my blog and picked up a moniker I had used from another time and place. Blog still going and Finarvyn is still known for White Box. Some of us don't forget things so easily.