Initial OD&D Thoughts

[Deleted]

Tolkien vs. non-Tolkien
In OD&D, until 1978 at least it was Hobbit, Nazgul, Ent & Balrog. In 1978 these were changed to Halfling, Spectre, Treant and Type VI Demon. Other than name changes, no substantive changes seem to have been made between the OCE and earlier prints. To use the new monsters feels closer to the later games, but is that what we are doing here? If we wanted to use a later system, we would be better off using AD&D or Classic D&D. Besides, having physical booklets with the old terms is a sign of being a true old-timer, very rich or extremely lucky.

Books vs. PDFs
Real books are expensive, PDFs are much cheaper. A decent copier can make working copies of the rules, and you can spare your collectible books. But they just aren't the same. The print is not quite as sharp, the pages not the same format, the paper cheaper.

What is an OD&D Product?
Beyond the 3-box set, Chainmail & Outdoor Survival by reference and the Supplements, what other products truly qualify? The Geomorphs? Monster & Treasure Assortments? Character Sheets with the Tom Wham artwork? What about the Holmes Box Set? It is not exactly OD&D, but it serves as a much better introduction to it than to AD&D. In the same vein, how about the early B modules, esp. B1-3?

Greyhawk or no Greyhawk?
Using the Greyhawk supplement, with the character classes from the Blackmoor supplement, feels like a variant of AD&D. But couldn't it be said that 3-box D&D is something akin to Chainmail 4th Edition?

[Falconer]

The Tolkien vs. non-Tolkien OD&D issue is a very major one for me. I have the OD&D PDFs and have no problem printing them out and using them (the print isn’t less crisp, the paper isn’t worse quality), but the PDF is non-Tolkien and as such is just lame to me. OD&D’s transparent homage to its inspiration is a major draw for me.

As for your last two questions, see the Holmes Basic thread in The Polling Place for a similar conversation that is currently ongoing. Regards.

[Gynsburghe]

Tolkien Vs. Non-Tolkien

I would prefer the earlier edition, though I suppose it doesn't matter that much to me... I own "hard copies" of the supplements but only PDFs for the LBBs. I actually don't game with a hard Tolkien flair, and I'm going to be replacing halflings with gnomes in my campaign world. Sacrilege? Nah...

Books Vs. PDFs

I don't have a single answer for this.

I'm in the process of compiling my own LBBs (yeah, I'm actually writing the rules back out in Word - so I have everything conveniently located), which in the end (three booklets I suspect) will be a bit like AD&D .75 edition. I cringe reading my supplements a wee bit, so I guess I lean towards PDF for general use. However, I am starting to collect the OD&D stuff - including all the magazines and JG stuff published... It will take me years to afford and find the stuff, but I feel that actually having the original books has an intrinsic value.

What is an OD&D product?

Everything up to about 1977, not Holmes though. The JG modules are the only ones I think are "purely OD&D", though I would probably be very much behind running b1-3 as OD&D - it wouldn't take much... or any... work.

Greyhawk or No Greyhawk?

Yes, Greyhawk - but I'm leaning against psionics (as I did with AD&D since my earliest days gaming). I'm also tearing Blackmoor apart for the good stuff. I like the early variant AD&D feel. Eldritch Wizardry too. And Dragon/SR magazine articles from the period. Sorta the extreme of inclusive OD&D, I guess.

Gynsburghe

[korgoth]

greathierophant said:

Greyhawk or no Greyhawk?
Using the Greyhawk supplement, with the character classes from the Blackmoor supplement, feels like a variant of AD&D. But couldn't it be said that 3-box D&D is something akin to Chainmail 4th Edition?

I think the key, as has been observed by the sagely around here, is that the supplements to the LBBs are the house rules for the particular campaigns on which they focus. Greyhawk is Gary's set of house rules. FFC and Blackmoor are (more or less) Dave's set of house rules, etc.

To me this suggests that the best way to employ the supplements is to cherry pick them for good stuff. I can't imagine running D&D without Beholders, so I take them gleefully from Greyhawk. But just because I'm snagging Beholders doesn't mean that I'm using the Thief class or variable weapon damage. And so, in a sense, the sum total of my cherry picking and my own personal house rules and rulings represents my own "supplement", whether I publish it somehow (I'd like to) or not.

[badger2305]

korgoth said:

To me this suggests that the best way to employ the supplements is to cherry pick them for good stuff. I can't imagine running D&D without Beholders, so I take them gleefully from Greyhawk. But just because I'm snagging Beholders doesn't mean that I'm using the Thief class or variable weapon damage. And so, in a sense, the sum total of my cherry picking and my own personal house rules and rulings represents my own "supplement", whether I publish it somehow (I'd like to) or not.

Right on. Exactly. That's what we did back in the day, and holds true today. It's what I do, as well.

[Deleted]

I agree, korgoth. I definitely cherry pick what I want for my games; a little from GH (creatures, the Thief [re-worked to my own tastes], & a few spells), a little from Blackmoor (creatures & items), a smidge from Eldritch Wizardry (mainly creatures), & 0 from Swords & Spells (I could get this for free, but I decided not to; reading through it, it just seems a little off to me). In the past few months I've gone from not having any OD&D material to having pretty much everything released by TSR for OD&D (including Chainmail, 3rd. ed.). The only material left I'd like to get my paws on are: Judges Guild supplements (I've never even seen them, & I'm not sure where to find any), PDF's of The Strategic Review & early copies of The Dragon, & Outdoor Survival from Avalon Hill (again, I've never even seen any of these, & have no clue where to find this stuff...). In any event, I'm highly confident I have a kick-butt campaign lined up starting this weekend. In all, this supplemental material I mentioned would be nice to have, but I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

[James Maliszewski]

korgoth said:

To me this suggests that the best way to employ the supplements is to cherry pick them for good stuff.

That was clearly the way the supplements were used in the early days and I even get the sense that that's the way they were expected to be used. It was only after D&D became so popular and "organized play" at conventions became unwieldy that the specter of standardization and homogeneity appeared. For all my frustrations with OD&D, what still shines through after all these years is the spirit of individual invention that animates it. A friend of mine lamented that OD&D isn't really a game at all but rather a toolkit for building your own game. For me, that's exactly it's appeal.

[James Maliszewski]

oltekos said:

Outdoor Survival from Avalon Hill (again, I've never even seen any of these, & have no clue where to find this stuff...).

Outdoor Survival is still very easy to obtain quite cheaply through eBay and other online sellers. I got a mint, unopened copy about a year ago for less than $10 to replace my old one, which I'd lost years ago. I get the impression no one ever actually played this game for its own sake; it's the only way I can explain the existence of so many mint copies after 30 years!

[Deleted]

Thanks, jamesm; I'll go check it out.

[ffilz]

Here's one decent rendition of the Outdoor Survival map

And Jeff Reints has one here.

Frank

[foster1941]

I love the OS map, especially the jrients version that's redrawn to look like a D&D map (whereas the original has pools instead of castles and little deer-heads in place of monster lairs). It's a perfect "generic wilderness" for wandering aimlessly around looking to get into trouble, and also easy enough for the DM to fill in if he sees fit -- choose which village is the "home base," which castle or monster lair is "the dungeon," and give the players reasons to go to specific locations instead of just wandering.

[jrients]

I've been meaning to do another version using HexMapper software. The castle and town icons are really nice in that one.

Rob Conley has an awesome black & white redraw with numbered hexes:

home.earthlink.net/~wilderlands/southlandsm.jpg

[James Maliszewski]

jrients said:

I've been meaning to do another version using HexMapper software. The castle and town icons are really nice in that one.

Rob Conley has an awesome black & white redraw with numbered hexes:

home.earthlink.net/~wilderlands/southlandsm.jpg

That is awesome. I have this idea of running a OD&D game that uses the Outdoor Survival map as its wilderness map, but now that I've seen this version, I think I'll use it instead.

[badger2305]

jamesm said:

That is awesome. I have this idea of running a OD&D game that uses the Outdoor Survival map as its wilderness map, but now that I've seen this version, I think I'll use it instead.

I was just thinking that same thing myself. Hmmm!

[Zulgyan]

The map is really quite perfect for Wilderness Adventures.

[James Maliszewski]

jrients said:

Rob Conley has an awesome black & white redraw with numbered hexes:

Hey, do you know what Rob intended the circles to represent on his map? They seem to be in the same location as "food sources" on the old Outdoor Survival map, but, so far as I can tell, Volume 3 does not suggest an alternative interpretation of that symbol as they do for pools/catch basins (castles) and buildings (towns).

[Zulgyan]

I think it is:

Black squares: towns/cities
White circles: castles
Diamonds: lairs.

[ffilz]

I think that's right also. Those are Judges Guild standard symbols.

Robert Conley did a lot of work with the re-released Wilderlands of High Fantasy so no surprise he used the JG symbols (and made the map in general reminiscent of JG maps).

Frank

[Stonegiant]

Does anyone know what software was used by Mr. Conley to create his map?

[jrients]

There's at least one thread on theRPGsite.com where he discusses both the software and his methods. IIRC one of them is called Maps for the Map Obsessed or something like that.

[Zulgyan]

stonegiant said:

Does anyone know what software was used by Mr. Conley to create his map?

I think it was campaign cartographer 3

[robertthebald]

I get the impression no one ever actually played this game for its own sake; it's the only way I can explain the existence of so many mint copies after 30 years!

Outdoor Survival was actually quite popular in our group (at least I liked playing it), and it proved to be conveniant to use the map for outdoor adventuring, and eventually for the relocation of our PC's from Blackmoor.

[driver]

I just got my Outdoor Survival map in yesterday (along with the rest of the game, for which I don't really have a use). It's really nice and sturdy.