1e and OD&D

[Falconer]

As a mirror of sorts to the “4e and OD&D” thread, what sorts of steps can be taken to make a game of AD&D 1e feel like OD&D? Let’s talk specifics. No “whatever works for you, man” kind of answers—I want to know your real opinions, and I’ll proceed to do “whatever works for me” anyway!

Obviously each player owns a copy of the Players Handbook. (Otherwise the discussion is moot because I as referee can use OD&D or any rules I want, “behind the screen.”) So let’s start with stuff printed in the Players Handbook. How much can be changed without inviting rebelliousness?

To quote Gygax, “I ignore the weapon speed factor, the effects of weapons vs. armor, generally don’t pay attention to anything but gross violations of encumbrance, and NEVER use psionics.” I’ve never had a player object to me cutting those things out. The Ability Score Minimums & Maximums By Racial Type table is another that I have no trouble dropping.

I have in the past given the players a restricted list of class/race choices (identical to Holmes’s list) at the start of a campaign, but in the long run, players will want to have access to all the choices in the book. But I could probably get away with disallowing one or two classes if “I had my reasons”. What do you think? Monk? Bard? Assassin? Thief? Half-Orcs and Gnomes (and even Half-Elves) make the game AD&Dish but I really have no objection to any of them in particular. Should I? I also insist on Hobbits instead of Halflings, heh!

Alignment is a pretty simple thing to toss out or simplify as I want, or depending on what’s appropriate to the setting.

Spell selection, of course, is always under a referee’s control. If I wanted, I could only ever give out OD&D spells. (It’s probably not necessary to be entirely restrictive in this sense—and part of the OD&D spirit involves invention of my own new spells, I reckon.)

I’d love to drop most Ability Adjustments—bonuses to hit and damage from Strength (and Dexterity), additional Cleric spells from Wisdom, and bonuses to AC from Dexterity are probably the biggies (any others?). It’s probably pushing my luck to try to cross these out of the book, but these are Major Things I Don’t Like.

I’d probably have to simply live with the “facts of life” of HD and XP and Spell Level progressions per the Players Handbook (and Dungeon Masters Screen. Cutting things out is one thing, but when it comes to replacing whole tables with new tables, it’s time to stop even pretending we’re playing AD&D. I’d particularly like to prevent the Cleric from having any spells at 1^st Level—or even for just part of 1^st Level—and can probably swing that through some mumbo-jumbo about proving himself worthy to the gods, but after that the progression will have to stand.

Does that about cover the Players Handbook? In any case, it’s a good transition point. Monster strength (especially HD) per the Monster Manual and combat tables per the Dungeon Masters Screen? I see no reason to mess with them.

Overall, I have nothing in particular to say about the Monster Manual. Monster selection is like spell selection. But is there anything that really changes the game the way magic missile does? Nothing comes to mind. I guess you could say monsters that have literary and mythological roots should be more prominent, alongside my own inventions, whereas monsters created specifically for D&D by D&D authors should be de-emphasized. Creatures with Tolkien roots need to be more Tolkienish; creatures with Greek Mythology roots need to be more Greek; likewise Arabian Nights and so on; and more White Apes and Thouls and Losels and such added into the mix.

The Dungeons Masters Guide—ah, there’s the beast! Suffice it to say there is a LOT in here that is not in OD&D, and for starters, the players won’t miss it if they don’t have to train for their levels! Perhaps something akin to the Special Interests rules from The First Fantasy Campaign would be a more interesting way to divest players of their treasures.

But overall I have always approached this book as a tool chest of optional stuff I can use. I’m now too tired to make a list of specific things I would throw out. Most of combat (initiative!) is too complicated. I’m kind of thinking of just not using the Dungeons Masters Guide at all, other than what’s already on the Dungeon Masters Screen, till I’ve gotten used to it. (Wasn’t there an issue or two of The Dragon that contained the bare essential parts of the not-yet-published Dungeon Masters Guide needed to play?) I’ll let you guys flesh out this part of the discussion.

Any other facets of this that I am missing?

[James Maliszewski]

I think it all depends on what you mean by "feel like OD&D." My preferred version of OD&D uses a lot of material from the supplements, especially Greyhawk. Do that and what you get is a kind of "proto-AD&D" mechanically. I'm generally of the opinion that OD&D and AD&D differ primarily in their presentation and attitude, with AD&D, especially post-DMG AD&D being -- at least as written -- more persnickety and less open to house rules. Of course, as played, I don't think there's as wide a divergence, especially if, like me, you use a healthy dose of material from the supplements. In my opinion, such people are already well on their way to playing AD&D.

[dwayanu]

As jamesm said, with the supplements you're already into proto-AD&D territory.

Rolling ability scores on 3d6, even with free distribution, should make (A) bonuses and (B) subclasses more rare.

[Falconer]

I think it all depends on what you mean by "feel like OD&D."

Indeed. I would like to hear opinions from people with any and all perspectives on the subject.

Rolling ability scores on 3d6, even with free distribution, should make (A) bonuses and (B) subclasses more rare.

3d6 in order is definitely my favorite way to go. Good point on its effect on bonuses and subclasses. Still, though, I can’t help thinking that the very presence of the bonuses makes the players feel like their character sucks if he doesn't have that 18 on his prime requisite. I guess if it’s just really so super-rare then it won’t be a big deal. The main objection is that it is power inflation, it adds more numbers to crunch, and it makes magical weapons and armor less magical.

But I guess with variable weapon damage (another thing I don’t like, but probably not possible to change), that can of worms is already open.

Is it fair to say that the game overall assumes 3d6-generated PCs and hasn’t compensated for the power inflation of 4d6, say, by making monsters more tough in turn?

Or would it be fair (and not game-breaking) to use d6 instead of d8 for monster HD?

[dwayanu]

AD&D certainly seems to assume inflated scores in terms of making some subclasses less than incredibly rare.

The thing about bonuses is that if you're guaranteed a couple of exceptional scores in your choice of abilities, then an ordinary one in your prime requisite "sucks." If you're rolling 3d6 in order, then 79% of characters have Strength scores in the 8 through 15 range. A Fighter needs at least a 9 BTB, but that's as good as a 15 in terms of hit and damage (and open-doors) rolls. So, you can have more variety in scores -- and a 16+ is really something special!

An 18 is awesome, but doesn't guarantee survival. If Awesome buys the farm, his or her peers are probably gonna be high enough level to take on the next (1 in 216) first-level Awesome without breathing hard.

If you want to use d6 HD for monsters, then I think you should downgrade the characters' HD (apart from MUs' d4) as well. I would not recommend doing that unless you're also going back to d6 standard damage. I think the HD boosts in AD&D an overdue correction for the damage boosts from Greyhawk.

[dwayanu]

The MM monster listings are pretty much per OD&D, except in psionics (which is just screwed up). Some of them get an effective boost from keeping their old AC even though the new scheme starts at 10 instead of 9. When they cast spells as Cleric or MU "level x," the given spell allowances are per OD&D -- not the PHB.

The hit tables in the DMG seem (at a glance) roughly to keep the old relationship between monsters and fighters about the same at low levels, giving fighters a bit of a boost at higher (post-Name) levels. Fighters also get multiple attacks, so on balance I'd say that even without stat inflation for characters the monsters end up having a harder time.

[Falconer]

If you want to use d6 HD for monsters, then I think you should downgrade the characters' HD (apart from MUs' d4) as well. I would not recommend doing that unless you're also going back to d6 standard damage. I think the HD boosts in AD&D an overdue correction for the damage boosts from Greyhawk.

I hear ya. Hmm. For monster HD, player HD, and weapon damage, I would love to throw it all out and go per the 3LBBs. But my feeling is that that just tips the scales to “quit even pretending to use AD&D!” So if we are using AD&D then we may as well accept the balance of across-the-board power inflation for what it is. Or just use OD&D.

[dwayanu]

MUs without exceptional Intelligence hit a "glass ceiling," lowered (from Greyhawk's level 6+) to level 5+ spells having a prerequisite. With 3d6 in order, you can probably expect fewer characters to choose that occupation.

One of Gary's later "What was I thinking?" reflections concerned Strength limits on female characters. I wholeheartedly endorse dropping them, especially if you use some stat-inflation method. In sword & sorcery fiction, girl fighters can kick just as much butt as the guys!