OD&D versus B/X Classic D&D

[Finarvyn]

[glow=red,2,300]This is not an edition war. Please do not "bash" other editions.[/glow]

I've been thinking of working on some sort of OGL-style game for OD&D, similar to OSRIC for AD&D and Labyrinth Lords for B/X. One of the options that I have considered is starting with LL and editing/changing until I get something more OD&D-like.

I remember Dan saying that he had to make a few changes when designing LL since legally it would be impossible to simply copy B/X and claim authorship. I assume in the same way I would have to make some sorts of changes to my clone-OD&D, so I would be interested in knowing which elements of OD&D are house-ruled by everyone anyway and which parts would need to stay as similar as possible to the original.

The problem is that I've played so many house-ruled versions of D&D over the years that I can't keep straight in my head which rules went with which versions. While I can certainly sit with the books side-by-side and take notes, I thought I might pick the brains of those on these boards since many of you have only recently discovered OD&D and might spot the differences much faster.

So the questions become:
1. What are the differences between OD&D and Classic B/X.
2. What are the unchangeable things that make OD&D "special" to you?

[korgoth]

Just off the bat, I can think of a few things I've noticed:

OD&D doesn't have rules for light sources (radii and duration) and doesn't have rules for searching for traps (B/X: 1 in 6; 2 in 6 for Dwarves).

B/X also has an adjudication section that addresses the concept of "Save vs. Abilities" where you roll under your stat on a 1d20 to see if you succeed at a difficult task, etc.

[Deleted]

I would say that d6 for HD & weapons would be the biggest differences between OD&D & B/X/"Classic". Race as class for B/X/"Classic" is also a biggie, too (since with all the OD&D supplements, you pretty much get AD&D 1ed.). As for others, korgoth mentioned a few pretty important differences (light & searching, as well as "Save vs. Abilities"). Beyond that, there's plenty more, but they're smaller, more minute things that my tired brain can't think of at the moment...

[coffee]

Also, in B/X, ability scores play a much larger part, with all of them giving a bonus from 13+. I really prefer the way OD&D does it.

B/X keeps the three alignment system, but gives a really weird explanation of it; I for one would really really like to see you write something different for that!

Phantasmal Forces is nerfed. If someone thinks they've died from an illusion, they are merely unconscious. I liked the original: Believe it and you're affected, even unto death.

I'm sure there are more, but these are the biggies for me.

[doc]

Also, the B/X game really made an effort to create a particular game world with modules placed in specific areas of the world (eventually culminating in the gazetteers). OD&D really had no specific worlds; for most gamers of the time words like "Greyhawk" and "Blackmoor" were really nebulous and were locations in name only, as nobody could have told you anything about either place just from reading the OD&D books. In OD&D you really had to roll your own in terms of setting.

Doc

[cadriel]

The biggest differences aside from those already listed, IMO:

- OD&D stats don't matter all that much. 18 is definitely better than 15, but it never has any direct, measured impact. OTOH, in B/X a 15 is +1 and an 18 is +3. This places a very heavy mechanical importance on high stats, which is alien to OD&D.

- B/X D&D has better defined demi-humans as well as the thief. The level of definition of elves, dwarves and hobbits/halflings in B/X D&D is much higher. And nothing in OD&D (without supplements) is anything like the thief.

In terms of feel, I think the big difference is that OD&D is the sketch of a system; it's some tools, not a complete game. B/X D&D is a "completed basic" version of D&D that is much more fully fleshed out and runs right out of the box. I think an "OGL OD&D" project should be very clear that it's a "make your own system" kit, a framework, and not a completely detailed game.

[thorswulf]

Some differences off the top of my head:
1. Equipment price lists are similar, but slightly different costs pop up
2. Ranged combat modifiers are slightly different
3. The chance of hitting a magic armor or shield in OD&D isn't in b/x editions
4. Some magic items are different in effect- gauntlets of ogre strength, and girdles of giant strength come to mind.

[Finarvyn]

korgoth said:

OD&D doesn't have rules for light sources (radii and duration) and doesn't have rules for searching for traps (B/X: 1 in 6; 2 in 6 for Dwarves).

B/X also has an adjudication section that addresses the concept of "Save vs. Abilities" where you roll under your stat on a 1d20 to see if you succeed at a difficult task, etc.

Although they are B/X in origin, I suspect that these are common "house" rules for many OD&D games. I assume that their inclusion wouldn't de-OD&D-ify my doccument too much, right?

coffee said:

Also, in B/X, ability scores play a much larger part, with all of them giving a bonus from 13+. I really prefer the way OD&D does it.

cadriel said:

OD&D stats don't matter all that much. 18 is definitely better than 15, but it never has any direct, measured impact. OTOH, in B/X a 15 is +1 and an 18 is +3. This places a very heavy mechanical importance on high stats, which is alien to OD&D.

I was debating between the Men & Magic version of stat bonuses and Greyhawk version, and I think you helped me make up my mind: I'll "M&M it".

[Falconer]

It's a tricky question. Two things that make OD&D so special to me are:

1) The presentation. If it's not the three booklets exactly as they were published, a huge chunk of the charm is missing.
2) The ambiguity and openness. If I can't be the one to choose between Chainmail, Alternate, and Greyhawk combat, HP, classes, etc. etc. etc., then it's not OD&D.

That said, #1 isn't an issue if the purpose, like OSRIC, is NOT that the game itself be played but rather as a vehicle for publishing modules for OD&D. #2 IS an issue insofar that it's handy to have a standard system for the purpose of modules. Historically, that was one of the purposes of AD&D--a 'standard D&D' for modules and tournaments.

For example, you could run the Giants modules in OD&D. You would have to adjust the HP because of the HD differences, but that's about it.

So you could take OSRIC and just change some of the more obvious AD&D innovations back to their OD&D equivalents, and you'd have a good set allowing play similar to OD&D+Supplements. On the other hand, most OD&D people don't use all of the Supplements, so taking LL and adjusting it to just OD&D sans supplements would be another approach. The question is which version would be better for the purposes of writing modules for OD&D--a skeleton rulesset or a heavier rulesset. Regards.

[korgoth]

Good points here.

Fin, one possibility, since people like to choose between alternate systems, is to set it up expressly as a toolkit. Like, instead of having a section telling the Ref how stat bonuses work, why not just present several numbered options? Or when you get to combat, present several different systems, followed by a bunch of optional rules?

Just a thought. Plus, you could use a "technical manual" numbering system so that when Refs inevitably add their own variations, they can just insert a sequential decimal emendation.

Such a document could even be a "living document" with a board that officially numbers submitted rules variants, if you wanted to take it in that direction.

[Finarvyn]

I'm leaning more towards the "OD&D without supplements" model, except that I think I'd still like to include the thief class as part of the "big four". As far as most of the contents of the supplements, however, I'm tempted to leave it out.

I'll have to ponder the toolkit idea. If I go with a single rules set, then there will be some that say it doesn't follow the rules they like best. If I go with a toolkit, there will probably be some that say it's not thin and skeletal enough. Hmmm.

Somehow it reminds me of old SPI wargames, where every rule had a number like 2.4.14 or something similar. I think the old Universe RPG did something similar, numbering wise, and I never liked its formatting.

[ffilz]

My interest would be to be able to have a single rules document to reference, and one that could be shared with my players.

To this extent, what would be best for me would be a toolkit, but as an editable document (i.e. not a PDF), so I can strip out the options I won't be using and add in any house rules. And reorganize as is useful to me.

It would also be important to me that the rules be as close to OD&D as possible (i.e. XP charts are exactly the same) so that except for my picking and chosing of options, and house rules, someone COULD use the OD&D books for my game (i.e. if they look up a spell in Men & Magic, or their XP, they should come up with the same rules and the restatement).

If the author of the restatement wants to share some of his own house rules, they should be in an appendix at the back (in fact, providing popular options from the boards would be nice, or course permission might be required).

Given that OD&D is available in PDF for a modest cost, I think a foreward encouraging purchase of the PDFs would be a nice gesture.

Frank

[Finarvyn]

ffilz said:

My interest would be to be able to have a single rules document to reference, and one that could be shared with my players.

To this extent, what would be best for me would be a toolkit, but as an editable document...

That's a neat idea. That way each person would be able to take the file and edit out the parts they didn't want in order to get a good "house rules" type doc.

I wonder if this would be better handled as a single Word file or as some sort of Wiki. (I'm not Wiki-savvy, but I suppose I could learn.) With a Wiki (as I understand them) anyone could add their own variant systems to a big database type file. When you wanted to put together house rules, you could pick the options you like best and copy-paste them into Word.

Hmmm. I'm not sure if that's what I want to end up with or not. Must ponder.....

[robertsconley]

My comment on this topic is that what do people want to buy/download?

If it is adventures and settings then we need X, if it some thing like a splat book then we need Y.

My own point of view is creating adventures and settings for OD&D. For that I need to be able to at least reference an OGL document for creating characters (with spells if needed), that has a list of monsters, and a list of treasure.

It doesn't need to be a full RPG like OSRIC is. We can refer people to the PDF for buying a copy of the rules.

[philotomy]

I like Robert's suggestion, for several reasons. First, it's simpler to accomplish and has natural logical divisions that can stand alone. Second, I think it would satisfy most of the needs for this kind of thing. Lastly, it avoids some of the problems and debates on exactly what to include/exclude or how to interpret this or that, and "filling in the gaps for your game" is in-keeping with the spirit of the OD&D rules, anyway.

(I'm also reminded of several comments I've seen here and there saying the game could almost be run with just the Ready Ref Sheets, or the Monster & Treasure assortments, et cetera.)

If the OD&D rules weren't readily available, I might feel differently, but since they're now available on PDF at a reasonable price, having an OGL version of the complete rules isn't as much of a concern, to me.

[wulfgar]

Here's a difference I've noticed- missile weapons are more powerful compared to melee weapons in OD&D than in B/X. Not only do all weapons inflict the same damage (1D6), but the ranged to hit modifiers are different.

OD&D

Short Range: +2
Medium Range: +1
Long Range: no modifier

B/X

Short Range: +1
Medium Range: no modifier
Long Range: -1

[dwayanu]

I have in the past reversed the range modifiers (to 0/-1/-2), and am leaning that way for my next campaign; AD&D went to 0/-2/-5.

Use of Chainmail to fill in gaps is implicit in OD&D, and the former rules alllow more than one missile attack per round in certain circumstances.

I don't know whether the rules texts support this, but in my experience playing the games I've found that missile fire after (or even during) the initial round of an encounter in the dungeon is allowed more often in Classic than in Original.

EXPERIENCE: The OD&D rulesbooks don't go into detail about how experience is to be awarded, but Vol. 1 does suggest that XP be modified based on relative challenge (e.g., 2/3 for third-level characters on the second dungeon level).

Moldvay Basic clearly separates division of treasure itself from division of XP for treasure (which are to be divided equally). Again, the OD&D text is not clear -- but this goes against the tradition I received (which seems to be in line with BTB AD&D practice).

Gygax in the OD&D FAQ clarified that (as implied in Vol. 1) magic items should yield some XP, a concept that I think is absent from B/X.

SCROLLS: Classic stipulates that Cleric scrolls do not require Read Magic, which seems to contradict both Original and Holmes. Classic DMs in my experience have always ruled that high-level Thieves do not need RM to use MU scrolls. I don't think the Classic rules ever explicitly addressed that issue. In fact, they seem to contradict themselves by asserting (in the Treasure sections) that only Elves and MUs can use such scrolls. In OD&D, the RM spell description (and absence of specified exemption for Clerics) makes the matter clear at least to me.

SEARCHING: IIRC, Classic (A) specifies chances to find traps, use Dwarf abilities, and similar odds unspecified in OD&D; and (B) reduces the chances of finding secret doors.

[ffilz]

I can see a point to a reference document for modules/settings only, however, to some extent, one of the existing pre-3.x simulacrum games should serve as a sufficient reference document for such things.

The reason I see so much value to a complete set of rules is because of all the options. Sure, you can pick up all the PDFs, and just tell your players which bits and pieces you are using, but it would be so much easier to just hand the players a booklet which has the rules in use for that particular campaign, complete with any house rules added beyond the supplements (and including interpretations of the original rules).

Now the interpretations bit might be a place where it could be hard to create a proper OGL ruleset, since of necessity, the text that is open to interpretation must be expressed differently. Perhaps the best way to handle such is to actually clearly present the known interpretations as different options, without the original ambiguous text. Someone using the rules as a basis for their particular campaign rules who is familiar with the original text and reads it differently from the provided interpretations will have an easy way to share their interpretation (and here's where the wiki might be useful, it would allow people to easily add new interpretations).

The big question I would have with a wiki is how much work it would be to extract the whole into a Word document? Cutting and pasting from more than a handfull of pages would make it quite tedious to create a document for a given instance of rules.

Frank

[dwayanu]

SPELLS: number affected by Sleep; chance of successful Dispell; whether Phantasmal Forces can kill ... probably many more

MAGIC ITEMS: probably many subtle differences

[coffee]

Couple of Clerical matters:

There is a subtle but important difference in the Clerics versus Undead Monsters procedures between the two:

In OD&D (V. I, p 22), "T = Monster turned away, up to two dice in number."

In Moldvay (p. B9), "If a cleric is successful at Turning some undead monsters, the player must roll 2d6 to find out how many hit dice of undead monsters are Turned. A successful attempt at Turning undead will always affect at least one undead monster, no matter how few hit dice are affected.


So, basically, in B/X, you'd better hope you don't run into more than one Vampire (9HD) because that's all you're ever going to turn. No more, no less. Whereas in OD&D, you could turn anywhere from 2 to 12 of them.


Also, and I just noticed this a short while ago, the Cure Light Wounds spell (V. I, p 31)

Cure Light Wounds: During the course of one full turn this spell will remove hits from a wounded character (including elves, dwarves, etc.). A die is rolled, one pip added, and the resultant total subtracted from the hit points the character has taken. Thus from 2-7 hit points of damage can be removed.


The phrase that pays here is the "...one full turn..." I know there was some confusion/ambiguity between a melee round and a full turn, at least in how things were described, but this seems pretty explicit to me.

Was this done so that the spell wouldn't be used during a combat? Or am I wrong, and it means a full (melee) turn, indicating that the Cleric could do nothing else during that round?



(Yeah, this is all nit-picky, I know, but if you're going to get into the whole OGL thing, that's what you'll need.)

[robertsconley]

I was thinking that perhaps a good first step is simply listing all the things in the D20 SRD that are found in OD&D. Classes, abilities, spells, monsters, and treasure. Along with where they are found in OD&D.

No stats or descriptions. Then when people have the time they can flesh out the stats and descriptions part. This way module and setting writing can get a jump on presenting material that is SRD and OD&D compatible.

[Finarvyn]

robertsconley said:

I was thinking that perhaps a good first step is simply listing all the things in the D20 SRD that are found in OD&D. Classes, abilities, spells, monsters, and treasure. Along with where they are found in OD&D.

This is a really good idea. I started to do something like this once with spells, but found that the 3E spells don't always have an OD&D equivalent and vice versa. I'lll have to see if I still have my notes on this.

[dwayanu]

There are so many -- but generally such subtle -- differences that in practice I simply treat a B/X (or AD&D) module as if it were written for OD&D. Only in rare instances do I find it necessary to look up and account for different assumptions.

Of course, I tend to go through and change things to suit my taste even if it is an actual OD&D dungeon.