So much fun. The characters don't start out as super heroes. They scratch and claw their way up the ladder. When they win, it means something. They experience emotions on every die roll, that players in modern gaming systems don't really experience. It's more edge of your seat.
I agree, I spent - no I waisted years collecting newer or the next new shiny system and it's pretty much just folks trying to re-invent the wheel. Some systems are like computer OS because of bloat. The old games you added in the fluff that you wanted in your game but I think most people either haven't the time or the patience to create in game content. I can remember being in middle school and we'd pour over our character sheets and the DM-GM would have a stack of 3 ring binders loaded with all sorts of cool stuff. I miss those days so very much. with my solitaire stuff - I've gone back to my roots with D&D and The Fantasy Trip. ( D&D for long-haul games and campaigns) TFT for short off the cuff games and 4-5 room dungeons or town buildings etc.
The newer rulesets and books have indeed provided me with great amounts of inspiration; but they have not increased the fun of actually playing the game. Just sayin'.....
OD&D, and early AD&D captured lighting in a bottle.
I love running OD&D (or its retroclone Swords & Wizardry: White Box) for all the reasons. So much crazy fun.
I run humanocentric 0e, so its Fighters / Wizards / Clerics only and that "limited choice" has been so refreshing and exciting for my players and its been a constant hit at conventions where I've run demo events.
I've been wanting to run a local game of OD&D using S&W White Box, ascending AC, and letting the core PC classes (Cleric, Fighter, Magic User) try the standard Thief-type skills (or any other skills) by rolling under an ability score.
Honestly I like both old and new D&D. Both styles have their flaws and merits.
Played a lot of OD&D back when, and it was good mostly because we changed what we felt wasn't good. It wasn't an accident or interference from people who didn't play that the game developed as it did; actual players and even the original designers wanted changes. The new stuff still includes the power to change what isn't good; it's just not as often necessary.
One thing I like about OD&D is that the game runs a lot faster than 5E. In 5E you might get through one combat per hour of play, but in OD&D you can do most of a dungeon in an afternoon.
Simple Character Creation.
Simple Character Sheet.
Simple Role for Your Character.
Simple Mechanics. Ex: Thief Skills.
Simple Monster Stat Blocks.
Lots of Room Left for Customization.
All Rules Will Fit Into One Small Book.
Older games in general just seem to get to the point much faster. Maybe not as clearly written, but decidedly less bloated.
Our group recently switched to 5e and I've been trying to really grok the rules... and it's just been a shlog, everything seems so overwritten. taking paragraphs to to say things that could be said in a brief sentence. I think part of it is that the authors are trying to create a mood, get the reader excited... but IMO that's the stuff that should happen in-game. I'm reading it to learn the game, not for the sake of reading. Leave the inspirational talk for the GM notes/suggestions.
Even Mythras, which I love, goes on a bit longer than it needs... muddies the text around the rules to where I'm more confused than if they'd just given me the basic info. Old Runequest was much cleaner.
Somehow looking at the LBBs of Classic Traveller gets me more fired up to play than the big glossy books full of paintings and graphics and bloated text.
Basic 5e has 125 or so spells versus [strike]just under a hundred[/strike] just over eighty for OD&D (3 books only; if you include thief skills, you're into Greyhawk which added 70 new spells.)
(Hmm, I just realized that I overcounted OD&D - some spells are listed as both magic-user and cleric and so I double counted them from the lists. But the different versions might have different ranges, duration, etc. So the numbers remain approximate. Since past experience shows that this will be ridden into the ground by people who want any excuse to dispute me, I checked; there are 8 cleric spells that are described as the same as a magic-user spell of the same name but most with changes in duration or range.)
And basic D&D 5e has 4 classes and 4 races; matching OD&D, pretty much (Greyhawk added 2 classes, Paladin and Thief). Mechanics are, I think, simpler in 5e because they're pretty much all d20 against a DC, versus d6 for this, 2d6 for that, 3d6 (loyalty only, I think), d20 for many.
5e is more verbose; they repeat a lot of boilerplate but it's mostly consistent (e.g., Conjure spells don't differ a lot) so it could be a lot shorter. By contrast, OD&D leaves out a lot; you can view this as room to customize or as a failure of the rules. The sales of AD&D 1e suggests that it was more viewed as the latter; people apparently wanted longer books, longer stat blocks and more spells.
Finally, why does everyone seem to have so much trouble running 5e combats quickly? There are more spell slots at low level, and characters probably have more choices available in a given round (with bonus action, reaction and more class or race features), but OD&D was quick at low levels mostly, and probably more because it was arbitrarily deadly. It got slow once characters had more spell slots, hit points, followers and magic items.
I liked OD&D back then, but I wouldn't go back to it ever. A cleaner OSR game, maybe, but not because it's simpler/shorter. But it's easier to just do 5e.
Quote from: Simlasa;1106680Older games in general just seem to get to the point much faster. Maybe not as clearly written, but decidedly less bloated.
Our group recently switched to 5e and I've been trying to really grok the rules... and it's just been a shlog, everything seems so overwritten. taking paragraphs to to say things that could be said in a brief sentence. I think part of it is that the authors are trying to create a mood, get the reader excited... but IMO that's the stuff that should happen in-game. I'm reading it to learn the game, not for the sake of reading. Leave the inspirational talk for the GM notes/suggestions.
Even Mythras, which I love, goes on a bit longer than it needs... muddies the text around the rules to where I'm more confused than if they'd just given me the basic info. Old Runequest was much cleaner.
Somehow looking at the LBBs of Classic Traveller gets me more fired up to play than the big glossy books full of paintings and graphics and bloated text.
I used to agree with you, but remember that new players aren't coming to the game with a familiarity with the history of its tropes and so forth. The flavor needs to be there to induct them into it.
I have had success with OD&D over the past decades. Although I did modify it to be better suited for my Majestic Wilderlands setting.
The Majestic Fantasy Basic Rules (http://www.batintheattic.com/downloads/MW%20Majestic%20Fantasy%20Basic%20RPG%20Rev%2008.pdf).
Wrote the Majestic Wilderlands supplement as an expansion and the Scourge of Demon Wolf adventure as well. I think Demon Wolf show that an OD&D adventure can be just as nuanced and character driven as more detailed RPGs like GURPS, Ars Magica, etc.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1106699I used to agree with you, but remember that new players aren't coming to the game with a familiarity with the history of its tropes and so forth.
Except that I was a new gamer when I first encountered this stuff (not OD&D, but AD&D and Classic Traveller and Runequest). I wasn't really much of a wargamer yet either.
Traveller was particularly inspiring for me in that it didn't push a lot of setting at me... no art, no fiction chunks. It was a blank slate I could write my already crowded imagination on.
OD&D is for DMs that want to get on with taking a table of people to a state of action instead of players projecting through characterization before dice are rolled. I love it.
Granted, I'm an AD&D guy first and foremost. But that's mainly because AD&D represents the rules I'd add to OD&D if AD&D didn't exist. I'm perfectly happy rolling in an OD&D campaign with a DM that takes the table somewhere.
Quote from: Razor 007;1106552The newer rulesets and books have indeed provided me with great amounts of inspiration; but they have not increased the fun of actually playing the game. Just sayin'.....
OD&D, and early AD&D captured lighting in a bottle.
Finally you begin to understand.
Quote from: rawma;11066865e is more verbose; they repeat a lot -
As an exercise, compare the page counts of each edition. And ask yourself whether or not there may be a point of diminishing returns.
Quote from: rawma;1106686Finally, why does everyone seem to have so much trouble running 5e combats quickly?
I think any system using the iterative rolled initiative system WoTC has used since 3e will run slower than d6-a-side. Another issue with 5e (and 4e) is that PCs tend to become relatively more robust as they level up; it takes longer to threaten them, so a significant fight takes longer. Running pre-3e D&D and even 3e it seemed that characters - PC & monster - were often "eggshells with hammers", whereas 4e PCs & monsters were called "padded Sumo wrestlers", and 5e PCs & monsters are somewhat like that too.
The great trilogy of early fantasy games:
OD&D
TFT
T&T
There's magic in all those games. TFT is great for the tactical combat, and T&T material is always inspirational for the anything goes and zany attitude, backed up perfectly by the rules.
Quote from: Simlasa;1106680Older games in general just seem to get to the point much faster. Maybe not as clearly written, but decidedly less bloated.
Our group recently switched to 5e and I've been trying to really grok the rules... and it's just been a shlog, everything seems so overwritten. taking paragraphs to to say things that could be said in a brief sentence. I think part of it is that the authors are trying to create a mood, get the reader excited... but IMO that's the stuff that should happen in-game. I'm reading it to learn the game, not for the sake of reading. Leave the inspirational talk for the GM notes/suggestions.
Even Mythras, which I love, goes on a bit longer than it needs... muddies the text around the rules to where I'm more confused than if they'd just given me the basic info. Old Runequest was much cleaner.
Somehow looking at the LBBs of Classic Traveller gets me more fired up to play than the big glossy books full of paintings and graphics and bloated text.
I would suspect that the vast majority of 5e PH's are read and never actually played.
RPGs are a really niche hobby and I see podcast/Critical Role fans buying the books to just get more into the show.
Quote from: The_Shadow;1106743The great trilogy of early fantasy games:
OD&D
TFT
T&T
There's magic in all those games. TFT is great for the tactical combat, and T&T material is always inspirational for the anything goes and zany attitude, backed up perfectly by the rules.
I still play TFT and since it's back in Jackson's hands -there has been a renewed interest in the old system. I love playing quick tactical fights. and T&T is fantastic especially if you use TFT in place of T&T's combat system. I started with OD&D and then AD&D but I've never stopped playing TFT all of these years. these systems of course have their flaws but - in my opinion they are the most fun to play and even teach- my kids will play a quick round of Melee and Wizard anytime ! I've tried to mix TFT's combat with D&D but I've had too much difficulty meshing them. as for the newer stuff, I just cannot justify sinking more money into systems that I rarely pull off the shelf. I don't want to knock the other stuff, It's just the old stuff really is "lightning in a bottle"
Quote from: S'mon;1106729I think any system using the iterative rolled initiative system WoTC has used since 3e will run slower than d6-a-side. Another issue with 5e (and 4e) is that PCs tend to become relatively more robust as they level up; it takes longer to threaten them, so a significant fight takes longer. Running pre-3e D&D and even 3e it seemed that characters - PC & monster - were often "eggshells with hammers", whereas 4e PCs & monsters were called "padded Sumo wrestlers", and 5e PCs & monsters are somewhat like that too.
Yes. I measured it this using both systems through the end of 4E, 5E playtest, and then the start of 5E. With 7 players, switching 5E to a side-by-side initiative system cuts combat times down to about 40% of what the default rules give, at least in the early levels. Still not quite as fast as early D&D, but much closer. Once you drop below 5 players, I suspect that combat time becomes more about attitude and attention than the system itself, but I haven't run with less than 5 in ages.
For a fan of early D&D "stuck" running 5E because it is the new shiny thing, I would suggest switching the initiative, do some minimal, selective pruning, and then run the game the same way you would the earlier versions. That's what I'm doing. The youngsters are really enjoying it. Yeah, the characters are harder to scare and kill. That means you can throw stuff at them and make them sweat! We had two or three that were stuck in computer game mode for a short time, but they've learned to run for it, or even better--scout and evade. :D
Quote from: Razor 007;1106535So much fun. The characters don't start out as super heroes. They scratch and claw their way up the ladder. When they win, it means something. They experience emotions on every die roll, that players in modern gaming systems don't really experience. It's more edge of your seat.
Quote from: finarvyn;1106674One thing I like about OD&D is that the game runs a lot faster than 5E. In 5E you might get through one combat per hour of play, but in OD&D you can do most of a dungeon in an afternoon.
These were huge "AH HA!" moments when I rediscovered the joy of old school play. One of the most thrilling encounters of any game I've experience occurred during a LOTFP game, wherein a low-level PC group, with a few hired retainers, was pushing through the forest, got lost and decided to camp for the night. I rolled a random encounter and ended up with a wolf pack. This turned into a circle of PCs + retainers, back to back, wielding torches against circling wolves. I rolled the wolf moral and they were either feeling brave, or just hungry. They dragged down a retainer and tore out his throat. The circle of PCs broke and they ran a retreating battle up to a rock formation, just barely visible in the gloom. They managed to scramble up top and hold off the wolves, but they lost both their hired retainers and almost had a TPK. It was just a random encounter with some wolves, but god-damn it was like something out of "The Grey" https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1601913/
After this, they rummaged through an abandoned and monster infested keep, escaped to a river, and managed to get picked up by river pirates. This was a day-game I was running at a local comic shop. The whole thing took place over maybe 6 hours. Another group next to me was running a 4e game (5e hadn't come out yet). They got through one combat in the whole day. One.
Quote from: rawma;1106686Finally, why does everyone seem to have so much trouble running 5e combats quickly?
I suspect it comes down to the fact that there are more hit points and more player options. In OD&D when a character went down they stayed down, but in 5E they get revived a lot faster and bounce back to re-enter combat. I've had some 5E games where I really thought we were headed for a TPK, then the party slowly pulled themselves out of danger and by the end won handily. Those sorts of things can eat up a lot of time.
I guess I just remember the old days when I'd set up a dungeon and the players could explore several floors in an afternoon. The Adventurer's League modules tend to be "three combats and done" style, and they take 4 hours to play. When I ran
Hoard of the Dragon Queen for 5E and we found a dungeon area, it might take several four-hour sessions to finish the thing off a couple of rooms per day. I'm not quite sure why it takes so long in 5E, but for me it does.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1106727As an exercise, compare the page counts of each edition. And ask yourself whether or not there may be a point of diminishing returns.
As I said, there is a lot of redundancy in the 5e books, and they could be better organized. But there's a lot just plain left out in earlier versions, so that any two campaigns could vary wildly on very basic rules questions. The Basic Rules for 5e are free and only about 180 pages, similar to OD&D with Greyhawk (although with somewhat larger pages).
(Comparing page counts otherwise: The Rules Cyclopedia is 306 pages (but rather condensed), AD&D 1e is at 468, AD&D 2e at 832, 3e at 752, 3.5e at 956, 4e at 832, and 5e at 992 - taking what appear to be the 3 core books at each edition, from Wikipedia.)
Quote from: S'mon;1106729I think any system using the iterative rolled initiative system WoTC has used since 3e will run slower than d6-a-side.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1106816Yes. I measured it this using both systems through the end of 4E, 5E playtest, and then the start of 5E. With 7 players, switching 5E to a side-by-side initiative system cuts combat times down to about 40% of what the default rules give, at least in the early levels. Still not quite as fast as early D&D, but much closer.
I cannot fathom why the 5e initiative system slows your games down so much. Everybody still has to act in a round however you choose the order; in 5e you roll to find out the order at the start, and the order doesn't change. (Adding in new combatants if summoned may slow the actual combat a bit; but it doesn't happen that often, and I'm willing to just put them in right before the summoner rather than rolling.) (I do miss rolling for surprise, but rolling for initiative has a similar feel.)
Quote from: S'mon;1106729Another issue with 5e (and 4e) is that PCs tend to become relatively more robust as they level up; it takes longer to threaten them, so a significant fight takes longer. Running pre-3e D&D and even 3e it seemed that characters - PC & monster - were often "eggshells with hammers", whereas 4e PCs & monsters were called "padded Sumo wrestlers", and 5e PCs & monsters are somewhat like that too.
Quote from: finarvyn;1106870I suspect it comes down to the fact that there are more hit points and more player options. In OD&D when a character went down they stayed down, but in 5E they get revived a lot faster and bounce back to re-enter combat. I've had some 5E games where I really thought we were headed for a TPK, then the party slowly pulled themselves out of danger and by the end won handily.
Well, combat will run quicker if it often kills PCs, and I hear new characters are quicker to generate. I like having more options; fast combats that aren't very interesting seem like no gain to me. OD&D with higher level characters with magic items and allies also ran slowly in combat, because harder to kill and more options, while low level characters spent a lot of time trying desperately to avoid combat and the result was either grinding or TPKs - not many satisfying combats either way.
Quote from: rawma;1106946there's a lot just plain left out in earlier versions
There'll be a lot left out in any version. The play example I often give is of a party who, encountering mummies in their sarcophagi, cast
hold portal on on sarcophagus, had the whole party sit on the other holding the lid down, used a rock drill to make two holes in the lid, poured oil in and lit it up.
No edition of D&D mentions whether
hold portal works on a coffin lid. No edition lists a rock drill for purchase, nor has a skill or other rules for its use. No edition mentions how much access to fresh air is required for oil to burn, still less whether something confined in a small space takes more damage or the same from it.
Any
finite rule set will fail to cover
infinite reality or player imagination. At some point the DM must say "no, don't be stupid," or "interesting, make a roll." The question is not whether the rules are
complete, since none are, but whether they are
sufficient.
The game designer must also consider that nobody will remember all the rules, so that the longer the rules, the longer people will spend looking them up. Anyone can read rules at home on their own, if you're in a game group for a session then you want to
play, not read. As well, human nature being what it is, the more rules there are, the more likely that when the DM is confronted by something outside the rules, they simply say, "no, you can't do that." A more minimalistic rules set lends itself more to, "interesting, make a roll." To this day my players remember drilling into the mummies' sarcophagi. We all remember Jon's evil cackle as he mimicked drilling. It would be a shame to have missed out on that simply because it wasn't covered by the 1,024 pages.
So: rules cannot be complete, but must be sufficient. What is sufficient? Well, that can be argued, and people's needs will be different. I would suggest that there's a reason so many rpgs have followed the model of having a relatively short book of core rules with a bunch of supplements expanding on various aspects. Each group can then mix and match to suit themselves.
Quote from: rawma;1106946I cannot fathom why the 5e initiative system slows your games down so much. Everybody still has to act in a round however you choose the order; in 5e you roll to find out the order at the start, and the order doesn't change. (Adding in new combatants if summoned may slow the actual combat a bit; but it doesn't happen that often, and I'm willing to just put them in right before the summoner rather than rolling.) (I do miss rolling for surprise, but rolling for initiative has a similar feel.)
There are several contributing factors. I can only guess at how much each factor contributes based on general observations, since I did not test each factor in isolation. (My goal was just to get to the best way, as quickly as possible. The overall measurement was a tool in that, not an experiment for its own sake.)
However, in general I think these are the big ones:
Cyclic doesn't scale very well. There's a tipping point of players. It varies in each group, but it is there. It's roughly the point at which players being a bit slow in their decisions starts to cause people to tune out, thus creating a negative feedback loop of distraction. If the players are sufficiently attentive, knowledgeable of the system, and don't cross that line of numbers of players, then you will not see this factor emerge. I routinely run for an average of 7-9 players, but the range is more like 5 to 13. And not always the same group composition, either. Going from 6 to 7 or 7 to 8 was often but not always sufficient to almost double combat time with my group, as that line got crossed.
If you ask several people to decide what they are doing and then let you know as they can, the order will naturally vary each time. This often means that the one person
this round that needs a few seconds to consider, or look up a spell, or something similar, is not holding up the game. By the time I've processed the other 3 people that can act right now, the 4th is ready.
After a little practice with the change, it changes how efficient narration works. In cyclic initiative, you will often get clumps of a few players together and then a few monsters. Essentially, it's a form of side-by-side for that fight. The recurring player then monster then player then monster thing rarely happens. With side-by-side, I can count on the clumping. It becomes natural to handle a clump mechanically, then narrate at once for the entire clump. Because multiple actions are being narrated, this leads to players paying more attention, and thus a positive feedback loop can be maintained. (As a side effect of this, the fights sometimes become even more interesting, because the fights get faster as they go.)
This next point is subtle, and I'm not sure if it is distinct, or an outgrowth of the previous two points. Players making decisions as a clump leads to them making decisions faster. I'm not just talking avoid analysis paralysis here, but decisively picking an action and going through with it. Might be a bit of a "herd" thing. Might be conditioning from a stop, GO, stop, GO. Might be something from my GM style of making them sweat that is being emphasized by the order. I'm not sure.
Finally, there is the issue of numerous and varied monsters. For various reasons in 5E mechanically and my own preferences, I want to have variety of monsters in most fights. (I don't want a huge variety, kitchen sink in the campaign, but what I do use, I use in varied groups.) Those reasons have nothing to do with this point, except that as a side effect of using the varied monsters, there is inevitably some quick consulting of notes, picking up different dice, etc. Doing monsters in clumps means that the average handling time for each monster goes down.
As I have said elsewhere, running D&D for 3 or 4 players, often fighting a solo monster, it doesn't really matter which system you use. It will be relatively fast, as long as you avoid analysis paralysis and other such player issues. And of course analysis paralysis will hurt any game, even early D&D.
More on topic, I'd be very interested in someone who routinely runs an early D&D trying cyclic initiative in those system, and what it does to combat speed. I think you'll find that it slows it noticeably, though how much is the interesting question.
I've never actually played 5E, but I've dealt with a lot of players that have and never had much difficulty getting them back to OD&D. I recommend a little booklet called "Philotomy's Musings", it's helped our gaming group a lot, especially in getting older 1E folks to appreciate the major differences with OD&D.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1107023More on topic, I'd be very interested in someone who routinely runs an early D&D trying cyclic initiative in those system, and what it does to combat speed. I think you'll find that it slows it noticeably, though how much is the interesting question.
Cyclic initiative? I use individual initiative re-rolled every round and with some common sense rulings it works as fast as anything else.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1106970There'll be a lot left out in any version. The play example I often give is of a party who, encountering mummies in their sarcophagi, cast hold portal on on sarcophagus, had the whole party sit on the other holding the lid down, used a rock drill to make two holes in the lid, poured oil in and lit it up.
No edition of D&D mentions whether hold portal works on a coffin lid. No edition lists a rock drill for purchase, nor has a skill or other rules for its use. No edition mentions how much access to fresh air is required for oil to burn, still less whether something confined in a small space takes more damage or the same from it.
Any finite rule set will fail to cover infinite reality or player imagination. At some point the DM must say "no, don't be stupid," or "interesting, make a roll." The question is not whether the rules are complete, since none are, but whether they are sufficient.
The game designer must also consider that nobody will remember all the rules, so that the longer the rules, the longer people will spend looking them up. Anyone can read rules at home on their own, if you're in a game group for a session then you want to play, not read. As well, human nature being what it is, the more rules there are, the more likely that when the DM is confronted by something outside the rules, they simply say, "no, you can't do that." A more minimalistic rules set lends itself more to, "interesting, make a roll." To this day my players remember drilling into the mummies' sarcophagi. We all remember Jon's evil cackle as he mimicked drilling. It would be a shame to have missed out on that simply because it wasn't covered by the 1,024 pages.
So: rules cannot be complete, but must be sufficient. What is sufficient? Well, that can be argued, and people's needs will be different. I would suggest that there's a reason so many rpgs have followed the model of having a relatively short book of core rules with a bunch of supplements expanding on various aspects. Each group can then mix and match to suit themselves.
I gotta say, Kyle, pretty much whenever you post I find myself nodding along.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1106970There'll be a lot left out in any version. The play example I often give is of a party who, encountering mummies in their sarcophagi, cast hold portal on on sarcophagus, had the whole party sit on the other holding the lid down, used a rock drill to make two holes in the lid, poured oil in and lit it up.
No edition of D&D mentions whether hold portal works on a coffin lid. No edition lists a rock drill for purchase, nor has a skill or other rules for its use. No edition mentions how much access to fresh air is required for oil to burn, still less whether something confined in a small space takes more damage or the same from it.
Any finite rule set will fail to cover infinite reality or player imagination. At some point the DM must say "no, don't be stupid," or "interesting, make a roll." The question is not whether the rules are complete, since none are, but whether they are sufficient.
When I say left out, I mean that no clue is given at all as to how to resolve some qualitatively different situation, not that some rulings remain to be made. (OD&D is particularly poor in that it doesn't always adequately explain things it does intend to give rules for.) So, how is grappling handled? Roll d20 to hit? Compare strength, or dexterity, or somehow factor in level? Or grappling is resolved as in Chainmail? And dodging - plus what on AC? versus the first attack, versus all from one attacker, versus all attacks in the same round? What if you need to block a hallway against two opponents - what are your options? What if you're one of the two trying to get past that one guard? I can't claim that 5e gives great answers to these, but it does have answers. Given some clue as to how to handle a situation gives you a reasonable way to proceed with parallel situations and keeps the game moving faster. You can run 5e having read little more than the Basic rules PDFs, and they're certainly longer than they really need to be.
QuoteSo: rules cannot be complete, but must be sufficient. What is sufficient? Well, that can be argued, and people's needs will be different. I would suggest that there's a reason so many rpgs have followed the model of having a relatively short book of core rules with a bunch of supplements expanding on various aspects. Each group can then mix and match to suit themselves.
5e is more like this than you credit, I think; there's wide swaths of 5e rules that I have not read, and it hasn't hurt me playing or DMing.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1107021There are several contributing factors. I can only guess at how much each factor contributes based on general observations, since I did not test each factor in isolation. (My goal was just to get to the best way, as quickly as possible. The overall measurement was a tool in that, not an experiment for its own sake.)
However, in general I think these are the big ones:
Cyclic doesn't scale very well. There's a tipping point of players. It varies in each group, but it is there. It's roughly the point at which players being a bit slow in their decisions starts to cause people to tune out, thus creating a negative feedback loop of distraction. If the players are sufficiently attentive, knowledgeable of the system, and don't cross that line of numbers of players, then you will not see this factor emerge. I routinely run for an average of 7-9 players, but the range is more like 5 to 13. And not always the same group composition, either. Going from 6 to 7 or 7 to 8 was often but not always sufficient to almost double combat time with my group, as that line got crossed.
If you ask several people to decide what they are doing and then let you know as they can, the order will naturally vary each time. This often means that the one person this round that needs a few seconds to consider, or look up a spell, or something similar, is not holding up the game. By the time I've processed the other 3 people that can act right now, the 4th is ready.
After a little practice with the change, it changes how efficient narration works. In cyclic initiative, you will often get clumps of a few players together and then a few monsters. Essentially, it's a form of side-by-side for that fight. The recurring player then monster then player then monster thing rarely happens. With side-by-side, I can count on the clumping. It becomes natural to handle a clump mechanically, then narrate at once for the entire clump. Because multiple actions are being narrated, this leads to players paying more attention, and thus a positive feedback loop can be maintained. (As a side effect of this, the fights sometimes become even more interesting, because the fights get faster as they go.)
This next point is subtle, and I'm not sure if it is distinct, or an outgrowth of the previous two points. Players making decisions as a clump leads to them making decisions faster. I'm not just talking avoid analysis paralysis here, but decisively picking an action and going through with it. Might be a bit of a "herd" thing. Might be conditioning from a stop, GO, stop, GO. Might be something from my GM style of making them sweat that is being emphasized by the order. I'm not sure.
Finally, there is the issue of numerous and varied monsters. For various reasons in 5E mechanically and my own preferences, I want to have variety of monsters in most fights. (I don't want a huge variety, kitchen sink in the campaign, but what I do use, I use in varied groups.) Those reasons have nothing to do with this point, except that as a side effect of using the varied monsters, there is inevitably some quick consulting of notes, picking up different dice, etc. Doing monsters in clumps means that the average handling time for each monster goes down.
As I have said elsewhere, running D&D for 3 or 4 players, often fighting a solo monster, it doesn't really matter which system you use. It will be relatively fast, as long as you avoid analysis paralysis and other such player issues. And of course analysis paralysis will hurt any game, even early D&D.
The rule is that DMs roll one initiative for identical monsters and they act together; fighting a single monster type this differs from your sides initiative only in that the PCs go in a particular order. Many DMs use folded index cards with PC names, hanging on the GM screen or standing on the table, in initiative order, so players can expect when they will act, and can be ready. I also use miniatures (at least, some kind of marker) so that they can see a lot of the situation as the round proceeds. If they delay the game too long (which depends on how much they've played) or haven't paid attention, they can be skipped as a natural consequence of hesitation; I'm not going to change the rules to cater to bad players. I've played with as many as 9 players (don't tell the AL organizers, as 7 is their limit) and certainly at least 5 different enemy initiatives with a group of 7, plus familiars and other PC allies with distinct initiative, and it's always worked OK for me.
Yeah, big fan of OD&D. :D
Me, too. :)
Quote from: rawma;1107125The rule is that DMs roll one initiative for identical monsters and they act together; fighting a single monster type this differs from your sides initiative only in that the PCs go in a particular order. Many DMs use folded index cards with PC names, hanging on the GM screen or standing on the table, in initiative order, so players can expect when they will act, and can be ready. I also use miniatures (at least, some kind of marker) so that they can see a lot of the situation as the round proceeds. If they delay the game too long (which depends on how much they've played) or haven't paid attention, they can be skipped as a natural consequence of hesitation; I'm not going to change the rules to cater to bad players. I've played with as many as 9 players (don't tell the AL organizers, as 7 is their limit) and certainly at least 5 different enemy initiatives with a group of 7, plus familiars and other PC allies with distinct initiative, and it's always worked OK for me.
Yep, tried all of those. Index cards is about the fastest way to do cyclic, or some variation using a whiteboard. The only initiative system I haven't yet tried is popcorn initiative.
Quote from: rawma;1107125When I say left out, I mean that no clue is given at all as to how to resolve some qualitatively different situation, not that some rulings remain to be made. [...] I can't claim that 5e gives great answers to these, but it does have answers.
"System A does not give you answers, and you have to make it up. System B gives you poor answers, and then you have to make it up. Therefore B is superior."
So... 500 more pages to read just to have make things up anyway? Okay.
In a social creative hobby, you are complaining that you have to be creative. Okay.
The way I handle initiative is have everybody roll 1d6+mods. I have a rule that fighter get to add their to hit bonus to the die. The difference between hitting AC 9 1st and at their current level. Monster add half (round down) of their hit dice. I roll initiative for named NPCs, and high HD monster. Every other monster gets lumped in a single roll.
Then I call out does everybody have a initiative of 10 or higher. And deal with those in order, taking the NPC or monsters turn if they come up at this point. Then I ask if anybody has a 9, then an 8 and count down. I been successful in managing group as large as 12 individual using this.
In addition I will dictate an arbitrary initiative order from time to time. If the opponents of the party not aware at the start of combat then I will have the entire party go first with those closest going first working my way back. The same with other circumstance where there is a clear spatial arrangement as how people respond. In most cases this works out to the benefit of the PC.
In general it works far more often than not and the continual shift in initiative give the combats in my campaign an added dynamic.
Also crucial but a separate is issue is handling people taking their turns. I start coaching if the player takes too long in larger group. I never tell them what to do but quickly try to help them narrow the options to two or three advantageous choices. For the more experienced players, I allow them to talk and question for a minute or two but at some point I will announce that I will count to 5 and they need to make a decision. I am not rude about this and debated I remind them that is a loose representation of the time pressures they would face if this was actually happen. The handful of times the argument persisted beyond that, I firmly remind the player that there are others awaiting their turns. I can't say I been perfect in this regards but feel I gotten better over the years. When a players mutters about this they feel like I am overly simulationist.
And there are times when no amount of experience at referee doesn't make up for the fact the party put themselves in a bad tactical situation. Not bad in that they are losing, although that could be part of it, but bad that combat becomes a grind even with OD&D. Something that happened this Monday when a players playing a fighter had to hold a corridor while fighting a bone golem (an reskinned iron golem) (it a high level party). It was vital that he did this but for him it amount to making a long series of d20 rolls while the rest of the party dealt with a horde of weaker Undead behind them. He was bored out of this skull while the rest of the group was pulling out scrolls, wands, figuring out spells, along with some attacks from a thief type.
Afterward we had a serious discussion of switching to D&D 5e, I didn't say this but I didn't see it playing out much different with a 5e fighter. Yeah he would have some extra actions and ability but still would have had to hold the corridor. And the extra damage he done would have been soaked by the increased amount of hit point everything has in 5e.
Long story short the party won but expended a fair amount of their resources.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1107154"System A does not give you answers, and you have to make it up. System B gives you poor answers, and then you have to make it up. Therefore B is superior."
So... 500 more pages to read just to have make things up anyway? Okay.
In a social creative hobby, you are complaining that you have to be creative. Okay.
What, you had to be rude and dishonest at the same time? Your page count to read for 5e is exaggerated as I've pointed out twice now. I don't claim great answers, but I'd risk nothing to wager you're not creating great or even consistent answers on the fly.
Quote from: rawma;1107125When I say left out, I mean that no clue is given at all as to how to resolve some qualitatively different situation, not that some rulings remain to be made. (OD&D is particularly poor in that it doesn't always adequately explain things it does intend to give rules for.)
The key is to describe the situation (to yourself) as if you are there. As the players describe what they want to do as if they are there.
Then use the following items to craft a ruling that reflects the odds of success if it doesn't automatically succeed or fail. A ruling that will use one or more of these components.
d20 to hit roll
Level
Armor Class
Saving Throw
Attribute scores
A class ability
My interpretation and use of the above are
d20 to hit rollRoll whenever a character does a physical actions that results in an effect on something defending itself or could defend itself.
LevelUse whenever something need to be decided on the based on the experience of the character
Armor ClassUsed when there is damage to be resisted. Otherwise use AC 9[10]+ dex mod to represent a simple touch
Saving ThrowRoll to avoid a catastrophic result or danger.
Attribute ScoreRepresent the character raw potential in six areas.
Class AbilityCharacters can fight, cast arcane spells, cast divine spells, or turn undead. There a few more naunces particularly with fighting but that pretty it for the 3 LBBs.
To handle what Attributes and Levels represents I ruled that anything outside of combat is resolved by a 15 or better on a d20 if involves a chance of significant failure like stealth, research, pickpocketing, etc. That if you had an attribute score of 12 to 14 that was relevant you add +1, if you have a score of 15 to 17 you add +2, and a 18+ added +3. In addition I add these bonuses to AC, to hit, and damage which kind of a house rule but more a variation of what the Greyhawk supplement does. Monsters get half HD as a bonus for similar rolls outside of combat or special attacks like grappling.
I also added a rule that a fighter may inflict an adverse result on an opponent, disarm, trip, hit a specific location, etc. Most of the time it in lieu of damage. But in all case the target gets a normal save and if it succeeds neither the damage or the adverse takes effect. This is to allow me to handle consistently any manuveurs the fighter want to do but not making it better than the normal to hit roll. It it scale as higher HD creatures and high level NPCs have better saves.
Now you may decide differently. For example you may decide to multiply the attribute by 5 and use percentage dice roll low. Or you my decide to use a d20 below the attribute, or 3d6 below the attribute. You may combine these mechanics different than I would.
However the process would be the same, look at the situation accordingly, decide on the odds and the procedure that resolves, and have the player roll. The lack of explicit rules doesn't mean the tools are not there.
Quote from: rawma;1107125So, how is grappling handled? Roll d20 to hit? Compare strength, or dexterity, or somehow factor in level? Or grappling is resolved as in Chainmail?
I handle grappling with a to hit roll and now the target is grappled in lieu of damage. The target can try to break free the next round with an opposed strength roll. If still grappled the attacker can attempt to constrain the target with an opposed strength roll (monster get a bonus of half HD). Or do a take down and pin the target to the group with an opposed strength roll. If the attack has a dagger, shortsword, or mace, they get advantage (like 5e). If this was five years ago got theywould have gotten a +4 to hit.
Quote from: rawma;1107125And dodging - plus what on AC? versus the first attack, versus all from one attacker, versus all attacks in the same round?
I would rule if you roll 15+ on a 1d20 plus your dex bonus then anybody trying to attack them will have disadvantage (or -4).
Quote from: rawma;1107125What if you need to block a hallway against two opponents - what are your options?
If the hallway is ten feet wide you can't. If it is 5 foot wide you can and your opponent has to kill you or knock you over. However with the ten foot hallway it will take one of the attackers two rounds to work their way around you. Because I rule you can only take 5 foot steps while engaged.
Quote from: rawma;1107125I can't claim that 5e gives great answers to these, but it does have answers.
5e is solid but it does come with a cost and it is not excess verbiage. It has a similar power curve to that of OD&D especially the basic rules. But does it different. To allow diversity and combat details, it grants more hit points and increases the way damage can be done. This in conjunction with the 20 level span means there more stuff to either understand, or develop if you are rolling your own. I wrote my own 5e classes and material and noticeably more tedious than what I had to do with OD&D.
There is nothing wrong with how 5e does things. Many hobbyists like the added details expressed as rules mechanics. But many things can be done just as well as with OD&D with a lot less rules overhead.
Quote from: rawma;11071255e is more like this than you credit, I think; there's wide swaths of 5e rules that I have not read, and it hasn't hurt me playing or DMing.
So you know where I am coming from I ran the same setting several times with both 5th edition in my own rules based on OD&D in the form of Swords & Wizardry.
The thing that makes me most curious about this thread is how someone would end up playing *original* dungeons and dragons (as opposed to AD&D, or basic/expert/companion, or whatever random edition was crapped out just previous to the time you started playing).
I guess what I'm asking is, the impetus for first playing with the original rules, happening to be even older than me? Or was there some specific revival of interest in the original rule-set? Or was it something like 'well, Wizards of the Coast offers this dubious new edition of D&D but they also got yet another reprint of original, and that's pretty much that, and I have no reason to cherry pick for particular used stuff, so let's go with option B' ?
Quote from: yancy;1107169The thing that makes me most curious about this thread is how someone would end up playing *original* dungeons and dragons (as opposed to AD&D, or basic/expert/companion, or whatever random edition was crapped out just previous to the time you started playing).
I was also wondering how many people actually sought out actual OD&D to play, as opposed to say Swords & Wizardry. OD&D has some great material in The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures that isn't replicated in clones, but I was wondering how many people actually rely on real-OD&D for the mechanics of play.
My OD&D exposure is via White Box - Fantastic Medieval Adventure Game, by Charlie Mason. It's an OSR reorganization of Swords & Wizardry White Box, which is a reorganization of OD&D.
White Box FMAG starts with White Box D&D, and adds the Thief class; as well as both Ascending and Descending Armor Class, and the "option" of a Single Saving Throw.
Quote from: S'mon;1107173I was also wondering how many people actually sought out actual OD&D to play, as opposed to say Swords & Wizardry. OD&D has some great material in The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures that isn't replicated in clones, but I was wondering how many people actually rely on real-OD&D for the mechanics of play.
There is a small but persistent group of OSR hobbyists who focus on white box play i.e. the 3 LBB versus the 3 LBB + Greyhawk. And many forum posts talking about the experience has them using the 3 LBB as well as their clone of choice. I think it been an non-issue since Wizards started selling PDFs of OD&D again.
What most causal observer of the OSR may not realize that the 3 LBB only D&D is as distinct as AD&D versus B/X. Still D&D but has it own feel. The way hit points are rolled, the fact everybody does 1d6 damage and so on.
The other thing that it is not possible to run 3 LBB by the book. There are a number of areas where rulings need to be made at the start of the campaign that make each 3 LBB only campaign distinct in terms of mechanics. A good outline of the issues is Philotomy's Musings (https://grey-elf.com/philotomy.pdf).
OD&D is best D&D.
Quote from: yancy;1107169The thing that makes me most curious about this thread is how someone would end up playing *original* dungeons and dragons (as opposed to AD&D, or basic/expert/companion, or whatever random edition was crapped out just previous to the time you started playing).
Old school conventions that emerged after EGG's passing opened the floodgates for easy face-to-face exposure. For example, I first played in some OD&D games at NTRPG Con in 2010 run by old guard (Kask) and new guard (Mythmere, Philotomy). At the same time, I think these events catalyzed interest in people who couldn't attend in person. Both groups wound up blogging and posting online about their experiences.
FWIW, the way I run initiative in original D&D is found here: Philotomy Combat Sequence (http://philotomy.net/rules/combat_sequence/). It's a combat sequence based off of
Chainmail and
Swords & Spells. There's a full version of the sequence, and also a "simple" variant. I usually run things like the "simple" variant, but with rulings based on the details of the full sequence.
Quote from: yancy;1107169The thing that makes me most curious about this thread is how someone would end up playing *original* dungeons and dragons...
Around the time 3.5 came out, I had grown dissatisfied with WotC D&D and started trying a lot of different systems, including older ones. I had a lot of fun with a fan-published "Holmes Companion" that was floating around, and since the Holmes Basic rules were an edit of the original D&D rules, that led me back to the little brown books. I saw the little brown books as a sort of "foundation D&D" that a DM can use to build on and "make the game your own." That worked out well, for me, and it stuck.
These days, I run two D&D rules sets: original D&D (plus my own house rules that tweak things exactly to my preferences/tastes) and 1e AD&D (when I want a classic, traditional D&D -- I consider 1e AD&D to be a kind of "de facto standard" for "this is D&D"). My AD&D game is usually Greyhawk, with the typical Greyhawk races and classes and such. My original D&D game is mostly based off the little brown books without much from the supplements, and with customization for my home "Cromlech Tor" campaign. It uses a base d6 for hit dice, weapons damage, etc.
Quote from: yancy;1107169I guess what I'm asking is, the impetus for first playing with the original rules, happening to be even older than me? Or was there some specific revival of interest in the original rule-set? Or was it something like 'well, Wizards of the Coast offers this dubious new edition of D&D but they also got yet another reprint of original, and that's pretty much that, and I have no reason to cherry pick for particular used stuff, so let's go with option B' ?
I played OD&D because I play my stuff before I publish. I published for OD&D because it over a broad audience for my material compared to rolling my own. It was during the advent of 4e and before Pathfinder when I started work on the Majestic Wilderlands.
I had re-written Thieves of Badabaskor for D&D 3.5 and hated all the nit picking format rules especially the stat blocks. So I wasn't going to use 3.5e. I had released 2 Points of Lights books through Goodman Games that were effectively systemless. So the retro-clones were at the right time at the right level of complexity for me to use to share what I been doing for 20 years at that point.
And because I stuck to the tropes of D&D even when using GURPS and Fantasy Hero the material I wrote for those system was transferrable over to Swords & Wizardry Core the clone I opted to use.
However because of Matt Finch Old School Primer and discussing the origins of the hobby, I finally figured out how make classic D&D (OD&D to AD&D 2e) work the way I wanted to it to work without having to re-write everything into a new RPG. I always had players describe what they were doing as their character first and roll second. I gravitated to systems that were well designed frameworks and toolkits to handle a variety to situation. System like GURPS and Hero System.
Discussing and reading about the origins of the hobby informed me what Arneson and Gygax were thinking things like the d20 to hit roll and armor class. Matt Finch's Old School Primer provided a context in which I could apply that to an arbitrary setting element or something what the players wanted to do.
As a consequence I started to have fun with OD&D/Swords & Wizardry in a way I didn't have the first go around with AD&D 1st back in the early 80s. Because it rules light, I got a lot more done with my hobby time while still running the same thing I enjoyed and that my players enjoy.
With the added bonus there being a large enough audience that going the extra mile to make the material usable by others felt worthwhile. Not just in terms of commercial sales but throwing things up and getting feedback.
The GURPS and Hero System community are very hidebound in their preferences. And because of the limitations of what I can share I can't show most of the work I done nor is it worth the time to do the extra to make it usable by others.
The insightSimply the rules don't define the campaign. What defines the campaign is the description of the setting which includes the type of characters the players can play. The rules are the procedures by which this description is translated into odds and dice rolls.
You can see this process the clearest in the earliest days of the hobby. There was little to none published games for the gamers to use. So to fight say a skrimish in the Battle of the Bulge, one had to dive into various primary sources to come up with procedures to handle the battle. And the entire structure of that game and scenario was based on the real life descriptions of the battle and the weapons used.
As it happens I found that OD&D is more than sufficient to as a framework to adjudicate players pretending to be characters in the fantasy medieval world of the Majestic Wilderlands. However it is a toolkit in the same way as the raw power system of the HERO System. To do adjudicate specific you use the available mechanics of attributes, AC, Hit points, to hit roll, saving throw and class abilities to construct a ruling. The ultimate reference source is not the rulebook but rather the description of the setting.
Despite all the glossy productions that have emerged since the mid 1980s, I still find the flavour of OD&D and B/X to be my favourite for D&D. Not so much the mechanics, but the old school flavour is what speaks to me.
RQ2 appeals for some of the same reason - the characters start inexperienced in a gritty/hostile setting and the players need to use their wits if they want the characters to survive and prosper as they struggle on the path to becoming veteran adventurers.
There was no quarter drawn, and it was not assumed your character would become veterans.
This was more likely to occur in D&D with level-appropriate modules (although I don't know if that was big for OD&D).
I really enjoyed the novice character games for the old school rpgs like OD&D, and I think DCC currently captures that aspect well.
These new rpgs often tend to have veteran characters as beginning default, making it easier and quicker to progress to heroic play, but for me there is something lost there
Give me an old school game any day
Quote from: S'mon;1107173I was also wondering how many people actually sought out actual OD&D to play, as opposed to say Swords & Wizardry. OD&D has some great material in The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures that isn't replicated in clones, but I was wondering how many people actually rely on real-OD&D for the mechanics of play.
I've run OD&D RAW(-ish) and its good stuff, but S&W:WB makes it stupid easy for introducing new players to OD&D.
Also, many of us who talk about 0e or Oe mix in the Holmes Blue or one of the Red books, and others weave in stuff from Judges Guild's house system. Yeah, many people don't know that JG had its own "OD&D" rules scattered about various products, much of it house rules, but also their own takes on various things. But there isn't any pre-Greyhawk JG stuff as JG was founded in 1976 and the Greyhawk supplement was early 1975.
In fact, I'm unsure if there's any pre-Greyhawk published anything from any 3PP from back in the day. There's definitely lots of White Box only OSR material out there now.
Anybody know of any early game magazines that published any D&D articles before mid-1975?
Every time I've run OD&D at an event, I've had a big crowd, and the refrain is always the same: "This game is so much better than ! You can just...do anything!" Because you can. I mean, shit, the magic-user in a group slew an ogre and saved the entire party, by beating it to death with his staff! Same damage as the (unconscious) fighter-with-longsword: 1d6! He hit it 3 times in 3 rounds for max damage.
But back to the point, when the players would say "Can I gather moss and make a poultice to heal up some wounds" I'd just roll a die (1-3 yes cave moss, 4-6, no cave moss) and say "Sure/sorry no" and so on. Player wants to leap across a table (the butcher block the ogre was going to slice up characters on to make sandwiches with), all heroically? Yeah, sure, it's just you moving across the room. For good measure I had the player in question roll a save v. death or otherwise trip and fall right in front of the ogre, who had a huge cleaver...well, he made it!
Players love all of this. As soon as they get over "I can't do so-and-so, my character sheet doesn't say I can" and realize "I can do anything the character sheet says I can't" (like if they only have a 10 strength and want to try to single-handedly move a 10 ton boulder, obviously they can't), they realize how open and awesome the game is.
That's what it's all about, man.
Now for home, long-term campaigns, I kind of prefer AD&D because everything's "right there", but I love OD&D too.
Quote from: yancy;1107169The thing that makes me most curious about this thread is how someone would end up playing *original* dungeons and dragons (as opposed to AD&D, or basic/expert/companion, or whatever random edition was crapped out just previous to the time you started playing).
I guess what I'm asking is, the impetus for first playing with the original rules, happening to be even older than me? Or was there some specific revival of interest in the original rule-set? Or was it something like 'well, Wizards of the Coast offers this dubious new edition of D&D but they also got yet another reprint of original, and that's pretty much that, and I have no reason to cherry pick for particular used stuff, so let's go with option B' ?
For me it was picking up
Warriors of the Red Planet, which is an OD&D clone tuned for playing Barsoom-style sword and planet (aka planetary romance) games. Before that I'd only been exposed to 3.5+ and I found myself wondering at the simplicity and elegance of the game. From there, like many others, I found myself looking Sword and Wizardry and many other "retroclones" and just kind of decided these games were much more my speed than WotC era games were.
I started with OD&D in the mid-70's myself (I'm one of the folks "even older" than you, I suspect :)). I rope in a new TTRPG player to my old-school homebrew about twice a year, so that's how they get involved. Often I hear that they enjoy the old-school game more than their subsequent forays into 5e. "More exciting" and "easier to focus on the action" are two comments I've heard more than once.