Is ODD Right for Me?

[BeZurKur]

Hello all,

I recently picked up some b/x books and revisited the game that got me hooked onto RPGs. I then stumbled upon this site thinking that b/x was original D&D. I knew about the small white books since '80, but I always thought that the basic rules were the same with just higher production. Catching up on the forums here, I realize how wrong I was!

Last week I started that classic game, and man did we have fun. I'm hoping to do a campaign but I have some concerns that I posted here on the Dragonsfoot forums. Here are my questions (and I promise they are ODD related -- not just classic):

How does ODD address my concerns (from the link above) with b/x? I get the impression that it might because ODD is more honest about it's design. The Classic rules seem to sometimes get in its own way with stuff like the Gazetteers (how to play in someone else's world) and the Rules Cyclopedia (how to take your character to really high levels).

Also, how does ODD differ in spirit and philosophy from classic b/x?

Thanks,
Joel

[foster1941]

Ugh, I just accidentally deleted a huge reply to this post. No time to reconstruct it now, 'cause I'm at work (shouldn't have tried to write it here in the first place). More later (unless I check back and see that others have already covered all the things I would've said...).

[Finarvyn]

I'm not ready to bash B/X, although I prefer OD&D. In general, if you like B/X Classic then you should also like OD&D. The two games are similar mechanically, but differ somethat philosophically.

OD&D is all about taking a few guidelines and running with them. Players have a few more options and the rules are less limiting because they promote improvisation and doing it "your way".

B/X isn't written quite that way, but once you get the OD&D spirit it's pretty easy to play B/X the same way as OD&D. Feel free to use the rules as a guide, but feel free to discard ones you don't like. Stay away from complexities and stick to the basics and you'll be fine.

B/X is probably a "better written" game in that they have tried to explain more and give more examples. This can be good, it can be bad. Examples clarify, but they also set precident of "it has to be done this way". OD&D gives quick rules and doesn't explain quite how they work so you have to give it a good guess, which frustrates some and enchants others.

So ... hang around here and soak up some of the atmosphere. If you like a more free-wheeling approach, either try OD&D or give your B/X game a little OD&D-style tweak. If you don' like the freedom of OD&D, stay with your B/X rules. Either way, have fun with it!

[murquhart72]

foster1941 said:

Ugh, I just accidentally deleted a huge reply to this post. No time to reconstruct it now, 'cause I'm at work (shouldn't have tried to write it here in the first place). More later (unless I check back and see that others have already covered all the things I would've said...).

Gawd, I hate when that happens! I feel for ya...

[James Maliszewski]

I'll try and answer your questions regarding your concerns with B/X and how OD&D addresses them (or doesn't).

GOLD: On this score, OD&D and B/X are quite similar. To the extent that either version of D&D has a natural endgame, it is establishing a barony and ruling it. This is by no means a required endgame and many campaigns never reach the point where the PCs are rich and powerful enough for this to be an option. However, if you're looking for anything more than this, OD&D won't provide much help, since it's a much looser and more open framework of a game than even B/X.

LEVEL CAPS: Again, OD&D and B/X are quite similar in this regard, as demihumans have level caps and the amount of XP needed to gain levels for all classes/races starts to add up after a while, making advancement slow. In principle, OD&D covers levels up to about 19 (rules are given for extending various tables that far), but in practice your game will never come anywhere near to that point.

SAVE OR DIE: OD&D has lots of save or die effects; that's just the nature of old school play. You could certainly house rule it away or otherwise mitigate the effects of save or die rolls -- it's your game, after all, and OD&D encourages that kind of thinking. However, IMO save or die is integral to the pulp fantasy feel of D&D, where danger is around every corner and the life of an adventurer can be short and cheap. I'd never call D&D a "gritty" game, but it's supposed to be a deadly game where discretion is often the better part of valor.

DUNGEON DESIGN: Not sure what your specific concerns are here, so I can't address them. If you don't mind, could you rephrase your problem on this issue?

[BeZurKur]

foster1941 said:

'cause I'm at work (shouldn't have tried to write it here in the first place).

That's the best argument for staying home and playing games instead that I heard today! If you get around to those thoughts again, Foster, I'd love to hear them.

Finarvyn said:

I'm not ready to bash B/X, although I prefer OD&D. In general, if you like B/X Classic then you should also like OD&D. The two games are similar mechanically, but differ somethat philosophically.

And not for nothing, but whatever I end playing, I'm definitely hanging around here for that exact mature and polite attitude on these forums.

I suspect I'm already playing it with an OD&D flair. After our first game, I went to the back to the rules and discovered there were somethings I ruled on the fly that already had rules for. In the end, I preferred my version: not because it was better, only better for me and my friends.

jamesm said:

DUNGEON DESIGN: Not sure what your specific concerns are here, so I can't address them. If you don't mind, could you rephrase your problem on this issue?

Thanks for addressing the OD&D angle on my issues. I've been reading articles all night on the stuff and am starting to develop a grip on it.

On the Dungeon, my primary concern is repetition. In my first adventure, I bypassed that by having a wilderness adventure with three separate locations and each one is short with a focused goal. However, the model seems to be concentrated mega-dungeons. Even stocking my small dungeons with a clear purpose was difficult. I'm sure this is a skill I'll develop, but I was wondering what resources exist on the subject.

Joel

[James Maliszewski]

bezurkur said:

On the Dungeon, my primary concern is repetition. In my first adventure, I bypassed that by having a wilderness adventure with three separate locations and each one is short with a focused goal. However, the model seems to be concentrated mega-dungeons. Even stocking my small dungeons with a clear purpose was difficult. I'm sure this is a skill I'll develop, but I was wondering what resources exist on the subject.

Dungeon design is a tricky topic, because there are almost as many opinions on the subject as there are referees. ;D That said, there are lots of great resources online about designing dungeons, both on these forums and elsewhere. I'm sure one of the local mega-dungeon aficionados can point you in the right direction.

Personally, I'm not a huge dungeon guy. I like them and have designed my fair share of them. I think I'm pretty good at it, but, despite what you my hear round here, OD&D need not be focused on the dungeon. The books include plenty of rules and advice on running wilderness adventures, whether as an adjunct to or respite from dungeon adventures or as an activity unto itself. I prefer wilderness adventures believe OD&D works just fine with this style of play. Like anything, it takes time and experience to get right. It's yet another way to play OD&D, so you should never worry that dungeons are the be-all and end-all of the game -- they're not.

[foster1941]

GOLD: Beyond the first couple adventures (once everybody's able to afford plate mail, long bows, and all the silver arrows and holy water they can carry) gold becomes essentially just a means of keeping score in both OD&D and Classic (B/X) D&D. Characters in OD&D have a few more things to spend money on -- OD&D places more emphasis on acquiring an entourage of retainers and followers, spending money to gather info, monthly upkeep (gold = 1% of the character's XP), magic-users researching new spells, and high-level characters developing baronies (not just building and manning a castle but also investing in infrastructure) -- plus OD&D gives XP for magic items characters will tend to have a bit less gold for the same XP total as Classic D&D characters, but even so they'll quickly find themselves with large surpluses of gold and not much to do with it. The Dave Arneson rule that XP is only gained for Gold that is spent on a hobby/interest is a good way to keep money flowing out at something approaching the same rate it flows in. A simpler alternative I sometimes use (if the players won't riot) is to simply remove excess gold by fiat -- allow the players to pay their upkeep, restock their equipment, and perhaps set a bit aside for an emergency, and simply declare the rest of the money gone at the start of the next adventure/session. This is totally true to the genre (no matter how big a treasure Conan, Kothar, of Fafhrd & the Gray Mouser won at the end of one story they were always broke and hungry at the beginning of the next), eliminates the problem of what to do with all that gold, and doesn't really penalize the players -- they already got the XP, they're allowed to purchase whatever equipment they want, and if they're serious about saving up for a castle that should be allowed too.

LEVEL CAPS: These are even more strict in OD&D than in Classic D&D -- 4th level(!) for hobbits, 6th for dwarfs, and 8th for elves. What this does, though, is make the reason behind the limits more clear -- they're not there for balance, they're there to make demi-humans into second-class characters. Demi-humans fit as supporting characters -- as NPC retainers or as the characters of more casual or short-term players -- but ultimately D&D is a game of human fighting men and magic-users (even clerics are distinctly second-best at higher levels) and all of the serious players will recognize that. This, again, fits the genre -- The Lord of the Rings isn't about Gimli and Legolas, it's about Aragorn. From this perspective -- that demi-humans are second-class characters, front-loaded with abilities (and thus eminently suitable for casual players) but not really suitable for the long term -- the limits make sense.

SAVE OR DIE: There are two answers here. The first is "easy come, easy go." To someone familiar with the basic rules creating a new OD&D or Classic D&D character takes all of about 10 minutes (even less if you don't agonize over ability score point-swapping or what equipment to purchase) and therefore it's not really a problem that 1st level characters have a mortality rate of 50% or higher. It's pretty much a given that at least some characters are going to die, and some players are likely to lose several characters a session (especially those who don't learn from their mistakes) and that's just the shape of the game. Don't get too attached to your character or invest a lot in backstory and such until he hits at least 4th level (and if you want a game where you can invest in the characters from the start consider starting at 4th level).

The other answer applies perhaps more to OD&D than Classic D&D which is that the player's skill is more likely to determine the character's life or death than random die rolls. In OD&D there is no "find traps" roll that lets the player off the hook -- the way you find a trap in OD&D is by describing exactly how your character searches for it: if your description is good enough you'll find the trap and survive, if not, you'll get caught by the trap and die (which brings up another point: saving throws should always be viewed from the perspective of "default failure" rather than "default success" -- it's not that you have to make the saving throw to continue, it's that you screwed up and your character deserves to die, but if you're lucky you might get a second chance). Of course, a lot of the responsibility here falls on the DM and how he designs his dungeons -- generally character death should come from the decisions the player made (where other/different decisions could've kept the character alive) rather than fortune alone.

GOOD DUNGEONS: This is entirely subjective and different people will have different definitions of what a "good" dungeon is. Here's mine. A good dungeon allows for a lot of player choice and decisions -- it has multiple entrances and exits and means of getting from level to level, it has multiple valid and rewarding routes rather than one correct path, it doesn't have "level bosses" that must be defeated before the characters can progress to the next stage. A good dungeon has a variety of challenges -- exploration (wandering in the maze trying not to get lost), combat (things to kill, and things to avoid), negotiation (things to talk to), and problem-solving (tricks or obstacles that the players must think, rather than fight or roll, their way through); what the perfect ratio of the above is will depend on the individual group, but IMO none should be neglected entirely, neither should any one be allowed to dominate too much. Most importantly, a good dungeon should be a reflection of the personality of its designer -- every dungeon should be unique and individual and not feel exactly like any other. Don't follow the rules or the examples within them too closely or try to make your dungeon exactly like someone else's, rather use it as the expression of your own interests and your own dreams. For an example of a "good dungeon" that fulfills all of the above criteria and IMO captures the OD&D spirit just about perfectly, it's hard to do better than Under Xylarthen's Tower.

[korgoth]

Moldvay B/X is a great set of rules. I like it much better than Mentzer, although Mentzer is fine.

OD&D is all about making the game your own. If you're going to just reinvent B/X, play B/X. But if you want to use the baseline (the six attributes, the basic combat and saving roll mechanics, maybe some spells, etc.) and take it in your own direction, OD&D is great for that. It is also great if you want to avoid later developments of the game like variable weapon damage (and the attendant monster damage inflation) or the Thief class, etc. You can pick and choose among all of these things.

OD&D is basically the most rules-light basis for D&D that you can get.

I like how easy it is to make up monsters:
Giant Rock Lobster: AC 2, HD 5, # app. 1-4, 0% in lair, move 60'.
Or even just:
Giant Rock Lobster: AC 2, HD 5, move 60'.

Shortest statblock evar. Rock lobster!

[vladtolenkov]

One feature of Classic D&D that annoys many people is the "race as class" element of the game. If you're interested in breaking out of that and having say an Elven Thief then OD&D is a good option (especially if you want something easier than AD&D). Just houserule it !!

If you're the kind of person who wants to buy a car right off the lot without doing a lot of work on it yourself then stick with Classic. However, if you're like the folks here and you like to get under the hood and tinker a bit then you can't do better than OD&D.

Hope that helps.

[badger2305]

vladtolenkov said:

One feature of Classic D&D that annoys many people is the "race as class" element of the game. If you're interested in breaking out of that and having say an Elven Thief then OD&D is a good option (especially if you want something easier than AD&D). Just houserule it !!

If you're the kind of person who wants to buy a car right off the lot without doing a lot of work on it yourself then stick with Classic. However, if you're like the folks here and you like to get under the hood and tinker a bit then you can't do better than OD&D.

Hope that helps.

Have an Exalt for that, Vlad. You've captured exactly how I feel about this, and I started with OD&D back in '75.

[redpriest]

foster1941 said:

LEVEL CAPS: These are even more strict in OD&D than in Classic D&D -- 4th level(!) for hobbits, 6th for dwarfs, and 8th for elves. What this does, though, is make the reason behind the limits more clear -- they're not there for balance, they're there to make demi-humans into second-class characters. Demi-humans fit as supporting characters -- as NPC retainers or as the characters of more casual or short-term players -- but ultimately D&D is a game of human fighting men and magic-users (even clerics are distinctly second-best at higher levels) and all of the serious players will recognize that. This, again, fits the genre -- The Lord of the Rings isn't about Gimli and Legolas, it's about Aragorn. From this perspective -- that demi-humans are second-class characters, front-loaded with abilities (and thus eminently suitable for casual players) but not really suitable for the long term -- the limits make sense.

Thanks for that. The increased level limits of AD&D really blurs that out, but I find your explanation of level limits very satisfying. My default home-grown fantasy world is very much a land of humans, with demi-humans treated as oddities and, as you say, "second-class" entities. This makes a very good fit. Something I was trying to do with the style of my world, is actually effectively backed-up within the framework of the rules.

[murquhart72]

I agree. Nothing against demi-humans, but the game is meant to be "humanocentric".

[Falconer]

My OD&D campaign is not “humanocentric” at all (Middle-earth is pretty equal-opportunity), but it seems to be going just fine! Granted, we haven’t reached a point where level limits would be an issue. Advancement in my game is pretty slow, anyway, so I don’t know if it ever will be an issue. But, when it does come up, if I decide to just ignore the level limits, I don’t think anyone will bat an eye.

This may sound odd, but I like having level limits written into the game, and having it at my discretion to toss them if I wish! Regards.

[badger2305]

themattjon said:

I agree. Nothing against demi-humans, but the game is meant to be "humanocentric".

I've written a bit of a reply to this here: odd74.proboards76.com/index.cgi?board=philosophy&action=display&thread=1194224592&page=3#1205846942

For me (and this is just me), the game is as human-centric as you, the referee, want it to be. That is to say, the virtue of OD&D in that you can get under the hood and tinker supersedes any of the particular starting assumptions - if you want to change things, go ahead. This would include the "human-centric" aspect of the game. That having been said, I would agree that the game starts off as human-centric; feel free to do that, or do something else, if you want.

[BeZurKur]

Okay, I think I'm getting it.

On GOLD, OD&D seems to give out less because magic items also give it XP. This is interesting because the game has flip-flopped on the issue. OD&D gives XP for magic items, Classic does not, and then AD&D returns to yes. The argument that magic items are a reward in of itself isn't valid because it's not about giving more, but about the currency you are using to distribute the same amount.

Also, there is more to spend it on: the default is that the player will be traveling with hirelings and henchmen and running a castle/estate/kingdom. I'm intrigued by this and overall prefer how OD&D handles the gold situation.

With LEVEL CAPS, I'm still a bit shaky. That the caps are there to reinforce a human dominance seems artificial. If there shouldn't be demi-humans, then don't include them. R.E. Howard didn't and we don't miss them. The Aragorn analogy isn't fair because he is the main protagonist. A more fair analogy is Boromir to Legolas or Gimli. I don't have a problem with humans surpassing the demi-humans in the potential for raw ability, but I don't think it mirrors the fiction out there -- at least not any I've read.

Choices that aren't equal aren't real choices. I like the b/x approach to this better. It doesn't have anything to do with balance or the fiction: it just doesn't seem fun to me. There is still my issue with the halfling and magic-user, but it's only two classes and at further extremes.

I'm definitely going to take an OD&D approach to SAVE OR DIE results: that is to allow the players to explore their way around it versus resorting to a die roll. The die roll is bonus: whether it is to find it or save from it, but it never replaces direct player action. Under those conditions, I don't feel bad having a save or die circumstance because the players always have the option to think their way out of it.

I think I'm going to like OD&D and I'm printing the rules out now! ;D What I don't entirely agree with, I'll just season to taste.

Joel

EDIT: With the whole level caps topic, I'm reading the Race as Class thread now and will probably chime in since it is more relevant there.

[ffilz]

foster1941 said:

GOLD: Beyond the first couple adventures (once everybody's able to afford plate mail, long bows, and all the silver arrows and holy water they can carry) gold becomes essentially just a means of keeping score in both OD&D and Classic (B/X) D&D. Characters in OD&D have a few more things to spend money on -- OD&D places more emphasis on acquiring an entourage of retainers and followers, spending money to gather info, monthly upkeep (gold = 1% of the character's XP), magic-users researching new spells, and high-level characters developing baronies (not just building and manning a castle but also investing in infrastructure) -- plus OD&D gives XP for magic items characters will tend to have a bit less gold for the same XP total as Classic D&D characters, but even so they'll quickly find themselves with large surpluses of gold and not much to do with it.

Hmm, where is the upkeep rule and the rule about magic items granting XP (I know AD&D has an XP value for items, but I don't recall seeing such a statement in OD&D).

The Dave Arneson rule that XP is only gained for Gold that is spent on a hobby/interest is a good way to keep money flowing out at something approaching the same rate it flows in. A simpler alternative I sometimes use (if the players won't riot) is to simply remove excess gold by fiat -- allow the players to pay their upkeep, restock their equipment, and perhaps set a bit aside for an emergency, and simply declare the rest of the money gone at the start of the next adventure/session. This is totally true to the genre (no matter how big a treasure Conan, Kothar, of Fafhrd & the Gray Mouser won at the end of one story they were always broke and hungry at the beginning of the next), eliminates the problem of what to do with all that gold, and doesn't really penalize the players -- they already got the XP, they're allowed to purchase whatever equipment they want, and if they're serious about saving up for a castle that should be allowed too.

I'm still tossing around ideas of what to do with the gold. I'm really tempted to have some sort of XP is only granted for gold you spend on a castle or something. I dunno. I'm also trying to figure out what the castle would mean to a mega-dungeon campaign. On the other hand, if gold is just treated as a score, who cares.

Frank

[foster1941]

Removing or modifying level caps won't destroy the game; at worst you'll find your parties having more demi-human characters and fewer human ones which might be a flavor issue but if you can live with that not a problem otherwise. One piece of fiction you might want to check out, both because it's just a cracking good piece of swords & sorcery (one of the best of the genre) and also because it seems to address "humanocentrism" in a way similar to what D&D's rules suggest (i.e. that non-humans have numerous inborn advantages over humans but lack the same mortality-driven "existential drive" that leads humans to overachieve), is The Broken Sword by Poul Anderson. It might not change your mind (and there's nothing wrong if it doesn't), but who knows, it just might...

(See also a series of posts in, err, "passionate" defense of demi-human level limits that I wrote at dragonsfoot (though the edited highlights-only re-post at The Knights & Knaves Alehouse is probably an easier read) shortly after reading this book, when its ideas were particularly fresh in my mind)

[murquhart72]

ffilz said:

Hmm, where is the upkeep rule and the rule about magic items granting XP (I know AD&D has an XP value for items, but I don't recall seeing such a statement in OD&D).

Frank

Underworld & Wilderness Adventures, page 24 (up top). As far as XP for magic items, it is alluded to in Men & Magic as well as The Strategic Review, but no absolutes are really given.

[foster1941]

ffilz said:

Hmm, where is the upkeep rule and the rule about magic items granting XP (I know AD&D has an XP value for items, but I don't recall seeing such a statement in OD&D).

The Support & Upkeep rule is at the top of Vol. III, p. 24 ("Player/Character Support and Upkeep"). On re-reading now it doesn't actually mention that it's a recurring monthly fee (I must've interpolated that from the analogous AD&D rule) and this could perhaps be construted as a one-time fee (i.e. every time the character gains new XP he must pay out GP for upkeep equal to 1% of that amount).

XP for magic items is mentioned in a brief and possibly ambiguous reference on vol. I, p. 18: "as characters meet monsters in mortal combat and defeat them, and when they obtain various forms of treasure (money, gems, jewelry, magical items, etc.) they gain 'experience'" (emphasis mine) and covered in considerably more detail (including some example item values) in the D&D FAQ from TSR#2.

[ffilz]

Ahh, ok, these little things you miss. It's amazing how easy it is to miss things considering how short the rules really are, even by the standards of a 1970s F&SF novel.

Frank

[Finarvyn]

As far as level limits go, consider this:

A 4th level fighting man is a "hero", which would be (I assume) either the star of a book/movie/game or at least a really top-notch sidekick. An 8th level fighting man is a "superhero", which would be more like the star of a series of books/movies/games.

So the top people in the campaign might be in that Epic 10-12th level range.

If you build your campaign under that assumption, level limits aren't a big deal.

[sham]

ffilz said:

Ahh, ok, these little things you miss. It's amazing how easy it is to miss things considering how short the rules really are, even by the standards of a 1970s F&SF novel.

Frank

So true.

Wait...there are rules?

Ah, yes, the covers do indeed say 'Rules for Fantastic Medieval Wargames...' I've taken my laser printed facsimiles and crossed out 'Rules' with 'Suggestions'. ;D

But seriously, yeah the LBB are a bit haphazard (not Hargrave-haphazard, but not much better).

To answer Bezurkur's OP, in a nutshell, Yes, it is.

[scogle]

I really don't think there's much of a difference in playstyle between b/x and OD&D. I have both (granted in pdf form) and have read through them, and while b/x expands on the game and adds some more rules, it's still extremely bare-bones, and the emphasis is still very old-school ("the DM is always right!" type stuff). The most major change it made was organizing the rules in a sane format

[oldgeezer]

Well, I'll admit up front I don't know much about b/x.

With the original, though, the important thing is to grasp the mindset of the rules:

"Here's a hit chart, a saving throw matrix, and some suggestions for monsters, magic, and treasure.

Add imagination and go ape$hit."

If that appeals to you, you'll like brown-box OD&D.

[dwayanu]

I think it's mainly a matter of attitude. There are mechanical differences, but they're pretty subtle.

If one has B/X on hand, I don't see any great virtue in a rigid insistence on never using it. For some years, Holmes was my "core book" and the LBBs were supplemental material. I think a referee should suit himself.

Using LBBs can be a prophylactic against getting into a rut. Opening them serves as a reminder that one is not bound to do things one particular way, because so much in them is left up to the ref.

Having more material can be great as a source of inspiration. The thing is to keep it in that place. You master the game; it does not master you.

[Haldo Bramwise]

Mar 18, 2008 18:49:39 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

As far as level limits go, consider this:

A 4th level fighting man is a "hero", which would be (I assume) either the star of a book/movie/game or at least a really top-notch sidekick. An 8th level fighting man is a "superhero", which would be more like the star of a series of books/movies/games.

So the top people in the campaign might be in that Epic 10-12th level range.

If you build your campaign under that assumption, level limits aren't a big deal.

That's the wisdom I've been picking up as I am learning more about OD&D. I like Philotomy's idea that characters above those levels have to sacrifice something in order to get that high - it's just not natural or healthy.

However, I would never try and tell somebody else how to run their own game - everybody has to follow their own heart.

[oldgeezer]

Rob Kuntz (Robilar) got up to something like 13th or 14th level.

That's playing steadily for 3 or 4 years at least once a week -- maybe more.

[Deleted]

Jun 24, 2008 11:27:09 GMT -6 oldgeezer said:

Rob Kuntz (Robilar) got up to something like 13th or 14th level.

That's playing steadily for 3 or 4 years at least once a week -- maybe more.

What was the typical length of a session back then? Was it of the 8+ hours sort or was it 4 or less hours sort?

[oldgeezer]

Mostly evenings, about 3 1/2 to 4 hours. Longer once in a while, but not often.