Text only | Text with Images

TheRPGSite

Pen & Paper Roleplaying Central => Pen and Paper Roleplaying Games (RPGs) Discussion => Topic started by: howandwhy99 on February 28, 2006, 05:33:40 PM

Title: Od&d
Post by: howandwhy99 on February 28, 2006, 05:33:40 PM
Show me the love!  Who's playing?
Title: Od&d
Post by: Knightcrawler on February 28, 2006, 05:35:41 PM
I have very fond memories but haven't touched it since 2nd edition AD&D.
Title: Od&d
Post by: The Rat Who Would Be King on February 28, 2006, 05:35:49 PM
You rang?!
Title: Od&d
Post by: howandwhy99 on February 28, 2006, 05:57:13 PM
Quote from: The Rat Who Would Be KingYou rang?!
--> Our site (http://www.beermotor.org/odnd/index.php)

We play the wood box rules with homegrown expansions.  Chainmail and Wilderness Survival mandatory.
Title: Od&d
Post by: The Rat Who Would Be King on February 28, 2006, 06:02:12 PM
I've been following diaglo's campaign notes at DF for quite some time, and have enjoyed the goings on immensely.

Which reminds me, I have an D&D link floating around there somewhere, too. I'll link it to here, so I don't have to retype all that.

EDIT: Here it is. (http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=9335&highlight=)

No story notes or anything thusfar, but maybe I'll do that here or something. We're winding up our first dungeon (begun in Dec 2004), and I've been working like mad on a new delve, all done very old school with large multi-levels and the rest.
Title: Od&d
Post by: Mr. Christopher on February 28, 2006, 07:47:05 PM
Quote from: howandwhy99Show me the love!  Who's playing?
I'll show you the love.

Huh? Well fuck, I thought you guys were talking about Rules Cyclopedia Basic / Expert / etc. version of D&D in here.

Now I want to show somebody the hate.
Title: Od&d
Post by: JoeBlank on February 28, 2006, 10:07:05 PM
I'm playing, but I think you know that.

(I too am in diaglo's game.)

He has not convinced me that OD&D is the one true game, but he has convinced me that the right game with the right DM/referee can be great.
Title: Od&d
Post by: Cyberzombie on February 28, 2006, 11:41:51 PM
OD&D = Rules Cyclopedia, Known World, Basic/Expert/Companion/Master rules.

Although I do own a 3rd printing of the white box old skool rules.
Title: Od&d
Post by: BOZ on March 01, 2006, 12:42:58 AM
Quote from: SatyrI'll show you the love.

Huh? Well fuck, I thought you guys were talking about Rules Cyclopedia Basic / Expert / etc. version of D&D in here.

Now I want to show somebody the hate.

diaglo? is that you?
Title: Od&d
Post by: Nicephorus on March 01, 2006, 08:25:22 AM
I liked the basic/expert rules.  If anything the Rules Cyclopedia added too much clutter.  But I haven't played for a while.  I wouldn't mind though - character creation and play are fast and easy.

I like the design philosophy.  Offer a few basic choices that are actually different.  D20 offers tons of choices with fine gradations - I like that too but it can be tedious at times.  For example, compare armor and weapons in the red book vs. the 3E PHB.  In basic, there are three armor types, essentially light, medium, and heavy.
Title: Od&d
Post by: The Rat Who Would Be King on March 01, 2006, 04:00:28 PM
Quote from: SatyrI'll show you the love.

Huh? Well fuck, I thought you guys were talking about Rules Cyclopedia Basic / Expert / etc. version of D&D in here.

Now I want to show somebody the hate.

Basic/Expert is a great system. If my OD&D experiment wasn't going so smoothly, I'd be using it in preference to any other D&D.

But I'm polyamorous that way.
Title: Od&d
Post by: Steve Miller on March 11, 2006, 03:26:52 AM
Quote from: howandwhy99Show me the love!  Who's playing?

I haven't played it since ca. 1997... but I am toying with breaking out the ole "Rules Cyclopedia" when the current 'Martian Adventures' of my Cyberpunk 2020 campaign come to an end.

I'll see if I can sell the players on a "retro-game" like that!
Title: Od&d
Post by: CleanCutRogue on March 21, 2006, 11:26:46 PM
I love the simplicity of the system.  As much as I love D&D3.5 as a player, as a DM I have to say that generating a level 12 (or whatever) character is a lot simpler in OD&D.  Plus - in D&D3.5 I fear I'm breaking the careful balance of the system if I get all house-rulesy (honestly, I'd rather spend three hours online searching for a playtested Feat that serves my purpose than add a house rule!).  In OD&D it wasn't that carefully balanced to begin with so tweaking and personalizing for a campaign setting or play preference was commonplace.

Anyone remember this file?  Class Generation (http://www.geocities.com/cleancutrogue/DnDClassGeneration.pdf)
Title: Od&d
Post by: RPGPundit on March 22, 2006, 11:23:27 AM
I've been running a Rules Cyclopedia D&D campaign "by the book" for the last year and a half now. The characters are at very high levels.  For a while, I was writing an online playlog of their adventures on the Mystara section of the Wizard boards, that also ended up somewhere on the Vaults of Pandius Mystara site.

Thus far, none of them have started their immortality quest, but a few of them are on the verge.

RPGPundit
Title: Od&d
Post by: RPGPundit on March 22, 2006, 11:25:30 AM
And dammit, where is the section for writing a .sig on here?? Or is that one of those "special features" that only become accesible after you've posted so many times.

Damned annoying, is what that is...

RPGPundit

edit: I've now confirmed that this is indeed the policy. Frankly, this seems ridiculous to me: People who are only lurkers won't care about not being able to have a .sig anyways, and those who are planning to be frequent posters to the website don't need to be bribed or cajoled into it. Meanwhile those who decide this site isn't for them won't be sticking around just for the sake of the privilege of having a .sig.

my blog: http://www.xanga.com/RPGpundit (http://www.xanga.com/RPGpundit)
Title: Od&d
Post by: Mr. Christopher on March 23, 2006, 03:45:28 PM
Quote from: RPGPunditstuff
Check your email when you get back from the Bar Fun-Fun. And when you successfully recover after that. I understand their Uvita requires a Saving Throw.
Title: Od&d
Post by: howandwhy99 on October 08, 2006, 08:09:04 PM
Quote from: RPGPunditedit: I've now confirmed that this is indeed the policy. Frankly, this seems ridiculous to me: People who are only lurkers won't care about not being able to have a .sig anyways, and those who are planning to be frequent posters to the website don't need to be bribed or cajoled into it. Meanwhile those who decide this site isn't for them won't be sticking around just for the sake of the privilege of having a .sig.
It's nice to see this problem was finally cleared up.

On topic, sadly our OD&D (3 little booklets) campaign is progressing at a snails' pace.
Title: Od&d
Post by: Akrasia on October 10, 2006, 02:46:08 PM
Quote from: NicephorusI liked the basic/expert rules.  If anything the Rules Cyclopedia added too much clutter....

Well, that 'clutter' is pretty much entirely optional (the skill system, weapons mastery rules, etc., can be ignored with no harm to the system).  Even with all that 'clutter', the RC is a 'lean, mean machine' compared to the bulky beast that is 3.5 D&D.

The Rules Cylcopedia is my favourite version of D&D, and I'd play it again if I could find people interested.

I'm less keen on OD&D (although I do own a copy, which I cherish).  I'd play it with a great DM, but I'd never run it myself.  

For an on-line version of the OD&D rules, see:
http://members.cox.net/brucemohler/dnd/

For an on-line version of the Basic/Expert rules (reworked to be OGL compliant), see:
http://www.basicfantasy.org/

Enjoy! :)
Title: Od&d
Post by: James McMurray on October 10, 2006, 02:54:58 PM
I haven't played a full campaign since shortly after AD&D came out, but I did send my 3.x group back in time to a previous age at one point. I converted them to RC characters and ran Sabre River.
Text only | Text with Images