The Appeal of OD&D

[doc]

Okay, I've thought about it for a little bit and I think I can tell you what it is exactly that I love so much about OD&D that makes me play it when there are literally hundreds of other games on the market.

I had to think of how to phrase this, because for many gamers, the thing that I love about OD&D is the main thing that they HATE about it. So here goes.

OD&D was the prototype. It had nothing to measure itself against or compare itself to. And as such, it made many glaring omissions or contradictions in the rules all over the place. Many of the rules and concepts were sketchy as best. Some were downright unplayable as written. Classes like the assassin could be translated in a way that made the character dang near impossible to stand against.

Plus, there was the lack of any real world. It was assumed that a LotR backdrop was in play, but never actually stated. We didn't know why orcs and goblins warred against elves and dwarves. We had no clue as to what part religion played in the world. One of my oldest experiences in a game was with a DM who reasoned that since the priests of this world went around armed and armored that there was a large religious war going on that encompassed all faiths. More ofen than not, the faiths of an early D&D world were the same as those in our actual world (Christianity, Islam, etc). In short, there was no coherancy to the rules or the setting.

THAT'S what makes it so great!

Now, before you all go "Why, he's aligned to Chaos! Burn him!," let me explain a bit. With the rules as they were originally written, there was a LOT of ambiguity. This forced the DMs and players of each group to come up with their own internal logic to patch up the rules and piece together a setting based on the snippets of world information they were able to glean between the cracks. By doing so, each group made the game their own by transforming it into their particular vision. The beauty of this was that you could take part in four different campaigns and all four would have completely different feels and conventions to them. One DM might translate a rule one way, and another in a way that was completely different. And since that rule may have been vague to begin with, both could be right! One campaign might interpret the Fighting Man to be the armed and armored knight of Arthurian legend, while another might picture the class as the wandering mercenary willing to raise his sword for coin. It forced you to role play and to make conscious decisions about the game and the world.

The games that we have today, while certainly far more slick, have a tendency to spell EVERYTHING out. If you have a character concept, you need to take a prestige class. If you want to come from a "far off land," you have to actually pick a land that tells you what sort of character you are, rather than just keeping your background mysterious. There are now precise and specific rules for EVERY situation and contingency that you can think of. There is now little room for DM interpretation without some rules lawyer piping up "but that's not how they do it in the boook!"

In short, OD&D forced you to be creative and to use not only your own imagination, but your own judgement in adjudication. Every campaign was it's own world, and every group had it's own mythology. I just don't find that in many games anymore.

Okay, I'm getting off my soapbox now.

Doc

[Finarvyn]

Very insightful, and very well said. Gamers either love OD&D and embrace its philosophy, or they spit on it and loathe everything it stands for. Your points on creativity and individualism are good ones. I agree and give you an EXALT for your thoughts.

[coffee]

Very well said! Have an exalt!

I'd just like to comment on one of the points you made. Games today not only don't encourage the DM to make things up (and/or make things his own), but they actively prevent it. This is largely the province of the ruleplayer and their insistence on the rules as written that can be traced directly back to AD&D. I'm sure designers rationalize this by saying that it empowers the players, but it ties the hands of the DM. This (in my limited experience) is where 90% of arguments during games originates.

I very much like the way, in OD&D, you can have your own house rulings on the rules (as opposed to house rules, which are added to the rules). These can come as a mandate from the DM, or they can come about as a result of the decision of the group (both DM and players). This is empowering to the DM, the players, and the group as a whole.

The time-honored rule of thumb is: The DM can make or break the game. Recent games are trying to get away from that. It's a noble gesture, but it's doomed to failure. Quite frankly, I really don't want to play in a game where the DM learned everything he knows from "D&D for Dummies". I'd rather he studied at the tables of all the good DMs he played under (and, indeed, learned what not to do from the few lousy DMs he might have known).

Roleplaying is a social activity. It's not a wargame. It's not a computer game. It's a group of people, and the 'leader' of the group is the DM.

In short: A DM without players is just a dreamer, but players without a proper DM are just playing Monopoly.

(Okay, Doc, you can have your soapbox back now!)

[jrients]

Well said. It's the creative process of imaginative negotiation with the players and the texts themselves that makes the game so compelling to me as well.

[doc]

lol, thanks everybody. When you are typing rather than speaking it is sometimes hard to know if you are getting across what you are attempting to, but looks like I was able.

I'm still a bit fuzzy on the exalts. I know they raise your karma and are a measure of what others think of your postings, but that's about it. Can anybody give others an exalt, or just administrators?

Doc

[foster1941]

You can exalt (or smite...) anyone other than yourself by clicking the appropriate word under their karma count. You can only do it every so often (once an hour? once a day? I don't know) so once you've exalted/smitten somebody the icons will disappear for awhile. Each exalt increases karma by 1, each smite decreases it by 1. It's possible to have negative karma, and I don't believe there's a positive or negative limit. Karma is completely meaningless except as a way for posters to pat each other on the back (or, alternatively, flip the bird).

[crimhthanthegreat]

Very well said doc, have an Exalt on me as well! I think you have covered the territory very completely and concisely. A lot of great insights there. That Ref that had the religious wars going on would be a really fun campaign (as long as every one involved remembers that it is a game) and just that one assumption creates a world history, all kinds of campaign/adventure hooks, drama , tension, and uncertainty to the game. I want to go from here to there, but I'm A and those people are B and I have to travel through C to get there, and then I will have to come back by way of D, E and F to get home. A few little assumptions by the Ref and some doors close but other doors open in profusion.

[Finarvyn]

foster1941 said:

You can exalt (or smite...) anyone other than yourself by clicking the appropriate word under their karma count. You can only do it every so often (once an hour? once a day? I don't know)

Foster, you're pretty much on target, except ... actually, I could EXALT myself if I wanted. (One of those programming glitches, I suspect. I don't know what the purpose of an Admin EXALTing himself would be other than to appear more clever and wise than he really is; what a potential sham!)

And I do believe it's one EXALT per hour. (Not one EXALT to each person per hour, one total. The option simply goes away for a bit and then returns when it's okay to EXALT again.)

[korgoth]

admin said:

... actually, I could EXALT myself if I wanted.

That sounds so immoral!

[Finarvyn]

I know. I had that very thought as I was typing.

The only thing is that as Admin, some of the "posting fun" is gone. I don't get to gain "experience levels" or gold stars as I post, so my post count is meaningless. I could go in and toggle my EXALT numbers, but what would be the point except to try to boost my own ego or make myself seem more important somehow. Why not just gice myself a karma of a million and call it a day?

Frankly, every time someone posts on the boards at all I get this glowy feeling of a job well done. The success of the boards is the cool thing. It is kind of weird that I could EXALT myself, however, since no one else can do it. (Sometimes I forget what everyone else can see since I have a few secret Admin icons and stuff like that.) ;D

[James Maliszewski]

coffee said:

The time-honored rule of thumb is: The DM can make or break the game. Recent games are trying to get away from that. It's a noble gesture, but it's doomed to failure. Quite frankly, I really don't want to play in a game where the DM learned everything he knows from "D&D for Dummies". I'd rather he studied at the tables of all the good DMs he played under (and, indeed, learned what not to do from the few lousy DMs he might have known).

This is what most appeals to me about roleplaying now -- and what drew me into the hobby in the first place. My earliest D&D games were DMed by my friend's older brother and father, who taught us, by example, how to play the game, both in terms of following the rules as written and changing them when they didn't suit either the circumstances at hand or the general flavor of the games they ran. It's a lesson I've always carried with me and one I wish more roleplayers would keep in mind.

In another thread, I alluded to the fact that one of the key elements of D&D for me is that the DM is neither a storyteller, who "tells" an already-constructed tale to his players, nor a mere "facilitator" who simply applies rules as written without regard. I sometimes think this delicate balance has been lost, with more modern RPGs erring on one side or the other. It's that balance I remember and it's that balance that made the game so enjoyable for me, for I felt I could contribute meaningfully to the game I shared with my DMs, both in terms of "story" and in negotiating how and when rules should be applied.

It's a romance that's last for over 25 years and I have no intention to see it end -- ever.

[Deleted]

Well spoken, both coffee & jamesm. Have an EXALT on me.
I like to compare a good DM to a good blues or jazz musician-playing off what everyone in your group is feeding you, & driving each other into perfect harmony.

[Finarvyn]

oltekos said:

I like to compare a good DM to a good blues or jazz musician-playing off what everyone in your group is feeding you, & driving each other into perfect harmony.

A nifty image, Oltekos. I find that some game sessions "just flow" and everyone gets into the game, while others just seem to fall flat. Nothing specific goes wrong, you understand, but somehow the music I'm playing doesn't match the music they're listening for (or something like that). ;D

[coffee]

On that note, I had one DM who was awesome when he was 'on'. But he was subject to migranes, and when he had one, the entire party could get wiped out.

It go so that I'd flat out ask him (if he didn't seem to be his usual self) if he had a headache. If he said yes, I'd suggest a town adventure or a boardgame. Why go through all that stress?

[crimhthanthegreat]

admin said:

oltekos said:

I like to compare a good DM to a good blues or jazz musician-playing off what everyone in your group is feeding you, & driving each other into perfect harmony.

A nifty image, Oltekos. I find that some game sessions "just flow" and everyone gets into the game, while others just seem to fall flat. Nothing specific goes wrong, you understand, but somehow the music I'm playing doesn't match the music they're listening for (or something like that). ;D

I agree, sometimes you get that perfect storm of a game where everything just meshes and you all go to a plane that you didn't even know was there.