4E and OD&D

[Finarvyn]

I'm not certain if this is a good topic to bring up or not.

There is a poster on the WotC forums who is trying to discuss how one could tinker with the 4E rules to make them more like OD&D.

Look here.

Of course, other posters immediately seem to want to bash "old school" gaming or nit-pick what OS really means, so the thread falls apart in a hurry. However, he had some interesting ideas so I thought I would post them here.

[Finarvyn]

For anyone who doesn't want to go to the WotC forums, here is the initial post there:

Bear with me. I'm just kind of thinking out loud, but today I was wondering what would need to be done to D&D 4E to make it have more of an old school feel (I understand that definitions of "old school" vary wildly).

My initial ideas were:

1) Take out the skills Perception and Insight.
You tell me where you look and I'll tell you what is there. And you, as a player, need to make up your mind about whether an NPC is lying to you or not. This is the 0E and BD&D way.

2) Take out the skills Bluff, Intimitate and Diplomacy.
You tell me what you say and I'll tell you how the other guy reacts. Again, this is the 0E and BD&D way.

3) Only give 1/10 the usual XP for killing monsters but give 1 XP for every GP found (but none for Magic items).
This is pretty much how it is in BD&D.

4) Be very lenient with made up moves in combat.
Basically, if the player wants to try something, use the page 42 rules but don't worry at all about stepping on the toes of pre-existing powers, feats, etc. Keep things as freeform as possible and reward trying new things. And remember that you don't have to rule the same way twice about a move.

5) make up extra good and bad stuff that happens in combat based on high or low rolls.
Don't shy away from declaring that someone (Player or monster) has been knocked prone by a high-damage attack or declaring that someone has gotten their sword stuck or knocked out of their hands, etc.

6) Stats are rolled 3d6 in order.
The "in order" part is key.


This was inspired by reading the Quick Primer for Old School Gaming.

What else could be done?

[dwayanu]

There are a lot (I keep finding more!) of other things I would change.

Perhaps the biggest problem for me is the time-consuming combat system, and that's the core around which the rest of the game is built. I'll appreciate 4E for what it is; when I want a game "more like" OD&D, well ... ;D

[blackbarn]

First, I agree with dwayanu.

But...

I have found that when playing 4E it helps make it a lot more fun and more traditionally D&D-like if the DM just makes up cool and appropriate things to put in without worrying about all the balance guidelines (rules?) from the book. Put in treasures and monsters that make sense or are simply fun, don't be so reliant on only using the statted PC powers, etc. I don't think copying OD&D's specific details is the answer, but rather a more open attitude that allows for freeform play and tosses the rigid balance schemes from the rulebooks out the window.

If you're scaling down the PCs power though, remember the monsters are tough in this edition and need to be altered appropriately. It also helps to have players who like aspects of 4E, yet are still willing to go with the flow as you change things around and use DM judgment rather than the prescribed methods in the book. If you want to alter it for people who strongly prefer OD&D, don't bother! Just play OD&D.

[dwayanu]

At first, I thought it would be easy and painless to ignore 4E's treasure model; now, I'm not so sure.

The game seems much more tightly knit than D&D/AD&D. Most of the AD&D DMs under whom I've played ignored the treasure tables and thereby were more generous than expected to Clerics (my favorite AD&D class). That was not a "fatal" error, though.

Introducing the "resource management" aspect to 4E looks tricky. For now, I wash my hands of messing with healing surges and "at will" or "per encounter" powers. I see more promise in playing with the encounter definition, so that some choices lead to players' having to press on without even a short rest to restore their capabilities.

Some sort of longer-lasting hindrance would be desirable. There may already be an example somewhere in the books, but I have not found it. Running out of surges and dailies is usually as close as it comes -- and in play, I have yet to see anyone reach that point (with surges, anyhow).

[edit:] Ongoing damage effects could (with enough bonus/penalty factors) potentially be very nasty! Ten rounds per minute, five minutes for a short rest, six hours for an extended rest ...

[dwayanu]

Oh, yeah: Ditch the "skill challenge" formalism!

In my experience, that sucks out all sense of immersion in a secondary reality, replacing role-playing with "roll"-playing.

Not that you can't have situations serving much the same purpose; just treat them in a more "natural" style. In design, the situation dictates what must be accomplished for "success" -- the number and kind of skill checks involved depending on how players approach it (rather than being preset). In play, players' choices of action come first; skill checks come second.

Anyway, that's how I would do it.

The "in play" essence, at least, might actually be helpful even for someone stuck on using the standard rules (a requirement, natch, in an RPGA event). There's still an art to Dungeon Mastering!

[blackbarn]

I have never even included skill challenges in the game I run. They don't seem to be missed.

As for treasures, they are so predictable using the parcels, and the way 4E is balanced, it assumes PCs will have a certain level of bonuses from magic at certain levels. To me, that kills the fun and the wonder of magic entirely.

I much prefer the random magic item charts of earlier editions, where items that were "too powerful" could be obtained in treasure (as could cursed items.) It makes things more interesting and fun.

[dwayanu]

I much prefer that, too! And characters who could be wounded/fatigued for more than a day, and limited-use magic, and magic-users who can't go about in plate armor with swords while casting spells, and quick combat (allowing, e.g., for Wandering Monsters and more time per session for exploration, problem solving and negotiation), and freedom from absurd economic dictates, and ...

... a lot of things that just aren't 4E!

Basically, I don't even think of 4E as an RPG, any more than ASL (Advanced Squad Leader).

[coffee]

Nov 23, 2008 14:00:35 GMT -6 dwayanu said:

Basically, I don't even think of 4E as an RPG, any more than ASL (Advanced Squad Leader).

Holy cow, that "A" stood for Advanced? I thought it stood for Argument!

That's why I just play the original (and with out the gamettes, perhaps the most unfortunate word for supplement ever conceived...)

[dwayanu]

I dunno about "arguments," but is there an appropriate synonym for exceedingly complex?

The original SL (without the expansions) is a gem, though, and quick to pick up!

[Arminath]

I think one post summed it up where the poster mentioned that 'players should get' 700+ gold at 1st level....'should get' It seems to me like the WotC Fantasy Game* has been created to give rules and mechaincs to remove the creativity from the DM (and not to 'save the players from god-like DMs'). The few games I've played in the combats just crawled, so I don't know where these streamlined combats come from that others are talking about, and the inflated power levels of everything is a bit overwhelming. I'm not bashing this new game, heck my 15 yr old son thinks its great that he can roll for the result of everything vs having to interact more with the DM. Many of the posters are right though, you can't take the machine that is the New Fantasy Game and make it feel Old School...They are built for different generations and attitudes of gamers and one can never become the other. One being 'better' than the other is just subjective.

*'4e' will never be called D&D in my house. ;o)

[dwayanu]

A bit OT, but ... I'm thinking 4E aficionados might dig Tunnels & Trolls more than OD&D.

In a compromise between how armor works in 5th edition T&T (much too effectively, IMO) and how it worked in some earlier versions (not for long), I've come up with an approach remarkably similar to how HP work in 4E.

Having noticed that, I reflected on how quickly T&T characters can attain "superhuman" ability scores. T&T SRs (Saving Rolls) offer a "basic system" analogous to the D20 one, only without the lists of predefined feats/powers/skills. SRs in combat are typically more significant than equivalents in D&D, potentially quite devastating (as missile attacks demonstrate). The general tenor is more "power gaming" and "over the top" (see the spells) -- closer to the 4E spirit.

It's not designed as a board game, it's pretty rules-light, and it rides roughshod over WotC's notion of "balance," but that's true of just about any old RPG apart from Champions and The Fantasy Trip.

[dwayanu]

The "Quest" rule in 4E may be helpful. Giving players XP for accomplishing objectives is a more general rule of which the award for securing a major treasure, OD&D-style, may be seen as a specific case.

If the goal-oriented awards sufficiently exceed the awards for killing things, then there's an incentive to consider options other than getting into fights whenever monsters appear.

One resource that must still be managed is time, especially real time at the game table. There can also be limited scenario time in which to accomplish a goal before events make it moot.

The DMG encourages DMs to let players come up with their own Quests, a way to get back toward the more open-ended and player-driven model of old-style campaigns.

I see some potential for this strategic element in combination with tactical use of the "encounter" concept.

[dwayanu]

Healing surges seem a closer equivalent to the role hit points play in older editions. To get a bit "grittier," one could place a normative cap on daily use of surges. Each one used in excess requires an extended rest (or perhaps a full day of down time) to recover. One might tinker with that ratio.

This is obviously just a general idea, in need of refinement if fit at all. Offhand, I think surges enough roughly to replenish all hit points once might be about right.

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, so monsters could be "walking wounded" as well.

[dwayanu]

One might supplement Quests with XP awards for creative approaches to smaller-scale problems (serving much as smaller treasures do in OD&D). The 4E game pretty much equates "encounter" with combat (or else a "skill challenge" resolved similarly). Tests of players' skill seem to get largely dismissed.

This may be due in part to a perceived need for easily quantifiable XP values. Arduin (and, IIRC, the Palladium FRPG) set forth a much more subjective approach. I tend to make only minor use of such situational awards, but more might help counter some of the pressures built into 4E.

In general, I think the more the better in a retreat from predefining what "overcoming the encounter" means -- if one aims for more of an RPG and less of a simple wargame scenario.

More broadly, this touches on the current trend of giving primacy to "stats" and die-rolls over description of what's going on in the imagined world. If attention to such description lets players sometimes succeed where the quantified mechanics would not, then they are more likely to get into "old-school" approaches to play.

[Finarvyn]

Some interesting discussion so far! :-) In general I'd prefer to avoid the "4E isn't D&D" style discussions -- I think we all agree that it's not the same game and it's unfortunate that it happens to have the same title. (And the comparrison to ASL is really good; I hadn't thought of it quite that way, but 4E is quite similar in philosophy to ASL.)

I guess my hope is that we could focus more on how to use 4E to be more similar in philosophy to OD&D, and not fixate on the fact that it's not the same game.

4E won't replace OD&D (or C&C) as the game of choice in my household, but my son has shown some interest in 4E (I suspect it's the "power gamer" in him) and I'd like to give it a shot. It's clear that 4E has more hit points, more powers, more rules....

But I don't entirely want to simply play 4E but more of an OD&D-4E blend. That's how I stumbled upon the original article and what got me thinking of how to OD&D-ize a 4E campaign.

Just me thinking out loud....

[dwayanu]

On combat:

The "powers" seem largely to take the place of the ad hoc bonuses an OD&D referee might give for tactics. Now, "niche protection" makes it problematic to assign such bonuses. The tactics become post hoc "flavor text" for powers.

(The Fighter's Tide of Iron is less abstract than many powers, requiring a shield. That bodes against letting someone do a "shield bash" without an appropriate power. I don't think WotC has released a "Knee Him in the 'Nads" power yet.)

Combat may be more likely to get stuck in an abstract "apply power A / apply power B" routine than OD&D in unthinking "roll to hit, roll to damage" -- and you'll be spending more time at it!

A KEY INGREDIENT, in my limited 4E experience too often neglected, is the terrain / environment. A dull arena makes for a dull combat scenario.

Give the combatants more to interact with than you would in a run-of-the-mill D&D encounter. Any fight in 4E takes up too much playing time to be run of the mill! Each should be designed as if intended to be a memorable highlight of an adventure, because you may get in only two or three -- and not a whole lot else -- per session. (edit: We got in four tonight!)

It may be necessary at first to have the bad guys demonstrate that the "set dressing" is functional. Overturn, get atop or under, or toss furniture. Take the high high ground, or force foes toward pits or other inconveniences. Swing on chains or ropes, or pull them to release "traps." Provide plenty of opportunities to "rock the boat," climb, leap, avoid rolling / swinging / shooting / geysering things, use cover and illumination / lack thereof, get entangled or mired or tripped up, and so on. Introduce fragile elements folks should like not to damage. When a power gives you some tangible referent, take it into account.

Imagine the heck out of it!

[chgowiz]

Nov 23, 2008 19:43:42 GMT -6 dwayanu said:

I dunno about "arguments," but is there an appropriate synonym for exceedingly complex?

The original SL (without the expansions) is a gem, though, and quick to pick up!

Holy crap - now *there's* a game I miss! I haven't thought about, much less played Squad Leader in almost .. sheesh, I want to say around 1980, so that's 28 years. That was such a complex game for a 12 year old to fully grok all the nuances.

No wonder I like the RTS's that emphasize small units...

Thanks for reviving the memories!

[jjarvis]

I suppose an old-schooler playing 4e should approach 4e with the view that 4e is a subset of the D&D experience. An awful lot of the classic game just isn't there and that leaves the DM with a whole bunch of stuff to add on to a campaign that is not defined by the rulebooks (for now).

[coffee]

Love it or hate it, 4e seems to still be D&D. To some people, at least.

Wil Wheaton (yes, that Wil Wheaton) writes about it in his Geek in Review column. Here's a link:

suicidegirls.com/news/geek/23470/

I think his last line is his best here: <i>"Remember, it doesn't matter what edition of what game you're playing ... a system is only as good as its DM and its players. "</i>

Truly an old school attitude!

[badger2305]

Dubeers - calm down there, fella!

I'm not sure what logical fallacy is obvious there - seems like ol' Wil is just stating a fairly common observation about game systems: in the end it depends on the players and the referee. If there *is* something that doesn't feel quite right about that, 'splain it to us gently, please.

(One of the things I like about this board is that generally we tend to disagree gently with one another - not sure I'm disagreeing here, but I'm curious about Dubeers strong opinions. Help me out?)

[Deleted]

Badger: I'm puzzled by your reaction to my disagreement but I'm certainly not here to stir things up. I deleted the post that upset you.

[Falconer]

Remember, it doesn't matter what edition of what game you're playing ... a system is only as good as its DM and its players.

Truly an old school attitude!

Come on, you guys don't see the delicious irony between these two statements?

[coffee]

Dec 19, 2008 10:09:45 GMT -6 Falconer said:

Remember, it doesn't matter what edition of what game you're playing ... a system is only as good as its DM and its players.

Truly an old school attitude!

Come on, you guys don't see the delicious irony between these two statements?

Not really, no. I don't.

To me, not only AN old school attitude, but THE old school attitude, is the DM rolling up his sleeves and saying "Here it is, these are the rules I'm using. If they don't work, I'll change 'em. If my players don't work out, I'll change them, too."

And that's what I see in the quote above.

I don't know what you see, but you clearly see something different. I invite you to explain what you see, that we may all come closer together in our understanding -- after all, that's what discussion is all about. It's why we're here.



(I do hope nobody took away from my earlier post that I suddenly thought that 4e would be a great game. I still don't think it holds a candle to the original D&D. It's still way too fiddly.

(But I won't let that or anything else stop me from playing it if it's the only game around. Or anything else, really. I think there's room for all of us in this big weird tent we call roleplaying, and infighting doesn't get us anywhere. And yes, that IS a change from my earlier 3e bashing days. I've gotten over it.)

[apeloverage]

Dec 19, 2008 10:24:14 GMT -6 coffee said:

Not really, no. I don't.

Well, he's approving of the attitude that it doesn't matter what system you're playing.

But his approval is expressed in terms which strongly equate 'a good attitude' and 'like old systems'.

[Falconer]

If system doesn't matter, then how come the very attitude that system doesn't matter is proprietary to, or at least most effectively cultivated by, old school systems?

Put another way, system matters at least so far as the fact that certain systems have taught you that system doesn't matter, whereas other systems (supposedly those outside the old school) do not share that value. Regards.

[coffee]

Dec 19, 2008 11:50:22 GMT -6 Falconer said:

If system doesn't matter, then how come the very attitude that system doesn't matter is proprietary to, or at least most effectively cultivated by, old school systems?

Put another way, system matters at least so far as the fact that certain systems have taught you that system doesn't matter, whereas other systems (supposedly those outside the old school) do not share that value. Regards.

Okay, maybe I'm just Mr. Thicko today, but I don't believe I know of these games of which you speak. But then, I'm just an old school guy and really not up on anything new at all.

I don't think Wil was saying that 'system doesn't matter'. He said that the system is only as good as the DM and the players, and I have to agree with that. I've played with widely different DMs or player groups, but using the exact same set of rules, and I can attest from actual play experience that he's right.


Or am I totally misunderstanding what you're saying? Because I'm really not trying to be difficult, here. I'm just not getting it.

(In my own defense, I'm moving, my sweetie is sick, and work has been outrageous this week, so maybe I just am Mr. Thicko after all...)

[Deleted]

Dec 19, 2008 13:55:47 GMT -6 coffee said:

I don't think Wil was saying that 'system doesn't matter'. He said that the system is only as good as the DM and the players, and I have to agree with that.

Okay ... with that I can agree.

[Falconer]

You're okay. I agree with 99% of what you say. The referee should be a cool person and a good referee. He should be able to throw out rules that don't work for him and make up new ones to suit him and his group. The players should be cool people and good players. They should be able to throw out players that don't work out and invite new ones who fit in better.

Given all that, I think it's still overly rhetorical to say "it doesn't matter what edition of what game you're playing" (--Wil Wheaton). Again, I understand what he's getting at. If you transplant a group of players and referee from OD&D to 4e, they will doubtless still have fun and the experience will doubtless be familiar. But will it matter at all?

The OD&D group playing OD&D would be different from the OD&D group playing 4e would be different from the 4e group playing 4e would be different from the 4e group playing OD&D.

All I'm saying is that there are lots of shades of meaning, and there's no reason to deal in absolutes. :-) Regards.

[coffee]

Dec 19, 2008 16:45:27 GMT -6 Falconer said:

If you transplant a group of players and referee from OD&D to 4e, they will doubtless still have fun and the experience will doubtless be familiar. But will it matter at all?

The OD&D group playing OD&D would be different from the OD&D group playing 4e would be different from the 4e group playing 4e would be different from the 4e group playing OD&D.

All I'm saying is that there are lots of shades of meaning, and there's no reason to deal in absolutes. :-) Regards.

Okay, I see what you're saying now. And you're right, it would matter.

I'm just a little zoned today, but I have high hopes for next week!