I have a small group of three including myself (DMPC) and would love to play 1e, but as stated never played it (started with 2e). I know I'll have the DMG for certain calls, and I'm reading through the players, MM, etc. but I really want this rules light and fun, I'm not bogging myself with too much story, I have situations, items, and monsters in mind etc. would starting with Moldvay or Holmes (do they convert?) be easier? And advice is welcomed!
Any of the editions you named would work fine. It really depends on what you want.
If you like the feel and style of 1e AD&D, and would love to play it, then go ahead and run it. My advice is to just start off with the core rules (don't dive right into stuff from UA and the later books). You may have questions about how to run things. The 1e rules leave some room for DM interpretation. If you have questions about that, I'd ask at the Knights-n-Knaves alehouse or at Dragonsfoot in the 1e forums. You might also reference OSRIC (a 1e retro-clone). The OSRIC rulebook provides greater clarity for some rules (although it might be noted that OSRIC's way to doing things like initiative are just one interpretation of the 1e initiative rules). The 1e rules are rich and full of little rules and subsystems that are kind of like tools in a DM's toolbox (you don't always apply every tool every time). It can take some time to get your mind wrapped around the way you want to run 1e, but it is a rewarding system for a DM who likes that kind of thing. And it is definitely a classic. I think if 1e as the de facto standard for "this is the D&D experience" (the 1e DMG, rangers, paladins, assassins, %-strength, CE half orcs, great modules like the D and G series, et cetera).
If you don't want to worry about interpretation, and just want a nice clean set of rules that are easy to reference and stay out of your way, then the '81 B/X rules are an excellent choice. The rules are simpler than AD&D, but also clearer and lighter and easier to figure out (and find, if you're referencing them at the table). Again, I'd advise just sticking with the '81 B/X rulebooks, at first (i.e., don't add a bunch of stuff from the later boxed sets, the RC, etc. right away). I think of '81 B/X as the "just sit down and play it" version of TSR D&D.
Holmes Basic is also a fine choice, although it's not as "put together" as the '81 B/X rules (and only covers levels 1-3). It's essentially an edit of the original D&D little brown books. There are some quirky rules in Holmes, and I expect you'd probably want to start house-ruling stuff (weapon damage, initiative, etc), and you'd need to decide how to handle levels 4+. You could extrapolate, or you could go into original D&D (with the little brown books), or you could go into AD&D, or you could just go into the '81 expert set. I think of Holmes as a basic set for original D&D, and I think of original D&D as the "make the game your own" version of TSR D&D: wide open for house-ruling and tweaking.
Once you decide on your base, you'll find it relatively easy to convert between the TSR D&D editions, in most cases. If you're using B/X there might be a few odd things if you're using a 1e module (like multiclass characters, exceptional strength, and such), but none of them are deal breakers. People have been mixing TSR editions for decades.
Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;992524Any of the editions you named would work fine. It really depends on what you want.
If you like the feel and style of 1e AD&D, and would love to play it, then go ahead and run it. My advice is to just start off with the core rules (don't dive right into stuff from UA and the later books). You may have questions about how to run things. The 1e rules leave some room for DM interpretation. If you have questions about that, I'd ask at the Knights-n-Knaves alehouse or at Dragonsfoot in the 1e forums. You might also reference OSRIC (a 1e retro-clone). The OSRIC rulebook provides greater clarity for some rules (although it might be noted that OSRIC's way to doing things like initiative are just one interpretation of the 1e initiative rules). The 1e rules are rich and full of little rules and subsystems that are kind of like tools in a DM's toolbox (you don't always apply every tool every time). It can take some time to get your mind wrapped around the way you want to run 1e, but it is a rewarding system for a DM who likes that kind of thing. And it is definitely a classic. I think if 1e as the de facto standard for "this is the D&D experience."
If you don't want to worry about interpretation, and just want a nice clean set of rules that are easy to reference and stay out of your way, then the '81 B/X rules are an excellent choice. The rules are simpler than AD&D, but also clearer and lighter and easier to figure out (and find, if you're referencing them at the table). Again, I'd advise just sticking with the '81 B/X rulebooks, at first (i.e., don't add a bunch of stuff from the later boxed sets, the RC, etc. right away). I think of '81 B/X as the "just sit down and play it" version of TSR D&D.
Holmes Basic is also a fine choice, although it's not as "put together" as the '81 B/X rules (and only covers levels 1-3). It's essentially an edit of the original D&D little brown books. There are some quirky rules in Holmes, and I expect you'd probably want to start house-ruling stuff (weapon damage, initiative, etc), and you'd need to decide how to handle levels 4+. You could extrapolate, or you could go into original D&D (with the little brown books), or you could go into AD&D, or you could just go into the '81 expert set. I think of Holmes as a basic set for original D&D, and I think of original D&D as the "make the game your own" version of TSR D&D: wide open for house-ruling and tweaking.
Thanks for the reply, I was beginning to lean towards Moldvay as I'd like "easier, and lighter" but keeping the the gritty aesthetic (or what I perceive it as anyway) of AD&D. I may be able to marry the two in some aspects. I'm really looking forward to it. I'm sure the first night will be roll ups and "getting acquainted" chicanery anyways!
Quote from: GrabtharsHammer;992526Thanks for the reply, I was beginning to lean towards Moldvay as I'd like "easier, and lighter" but keeping the the gritty aesthetic (or what I perceive it as anyway) of AD&D. I may be able to marry the two in some aspects. I'm really looking forward to it. I'm sure the first night will be roll ups and "getting acquainted" chicanery anyways!
Yeah, I think the '81 B/X sets would be a good choice for what you're describing. I know exactly what you mean about the "gritty aesthetic," too. If you start with B/X, you'll have no trouble adding in elements from AD&D: that's exactly what many people did, back in the day.
Hope you have a blast with your game!
Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;992527Hope you have a blast with your game!
I know we will! Thanks again.
Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;992527Yeah, I think the '81 B/X sets would be a good choice for what you're describing. I know exactly what you mean about the "gritty aesthetic," too. If you start with B/X, you'll have no trouble adding in elements from AD&D: that's exactly what many people did, back in the day.
Hope you have a blast with your game!
Is there a big difference between Moldvay and Mentzer? I have both, and aside from separating the player and dm guide it seems as though he just dumbed it down a little, or made it easier for a younger audience?
Well, there's a villain named Bargle.
Quote from: GrabtharsHammer;992643Is there a big difference between Moldvay and Mentzer? I have both, and aside from separating the player and dm guide it seems as though he just dumbed it down a little, or made it easier for a younger audience?
Well, of course Mentzer goes up past level 14, but I suspect you knew that. ;) The actual Basic and Expert books by Moldvay and the Basic and Expert books by Mentzer have very similar rule sets (presentation is different, Moldvay has a sample adventure to introduce the concept of dungeoneering while Mentzer has a little choose-your-own-adventure section for the same purpose). Other than that, I can't think of any particular reason why it would actually be dumbed down or easier, so I think it is just presentation.
The rules differences I can recall are that Mentzer stretches out the thief ability progression so that they don't approach 100% by level 14 (I should stipulate that if you have the true original print run of Mentzer, it uses the same as Moldvay, and then they changed it). This is generally seen as a mistake, as you're then still plinking around in the 30s and 40s percents at 4-12th level where most of your dungeon-crawling is (however, house-ruling thieves in some way is almost necessary, and that will introduce more variation between gaming groups than the decision between Moldvay and Mentzer anyways). Moldvay, OTOH, has the rather unfortunate fact that your magic user spells known equal your spellcasting progression (so a 5th level magic user who can cast 3/2/1 would know 3 first level spells, 2 second level spells, and 1 third) with no way to learn more. There are some things you might want to pull from post-expert Mentzer like domain management or mass combat or weapon mastery rules (which make fighters much competitive above a certain level). But if you have both, mix and match. You now have twice as many books to use at the table.
Quote from: fearsomepirate;992649Well, there's a villain named Bargle.
Yes, there's a villain named Bargle and a cleric named Aleena who gets a few very nice Elmore illustrations that give you strange feelings as a 9-10 year old and make you very upset on pages 6&7 and again when you go back through and realize there isn't an option that lets you defeat the bad guy. :D
Quote from: GrabtharsHammer;992643Is there a big difference between Moldvay and Mentzer? I have both, and aside from separating the player and dm guide it seems as though he just dumbed it down a little, or made it easier for a younger audience?
There are minor differences. For example, the '83 sets "stretch" certain things (e.g., thief skills) to cover the 1-36 level range of the complete BECM model. I prefer D&D in the level range covered by the B/X sets, so I find that less desirable. The C and M sets add some additional rules (like weapon mastery) that I think are best added only after you've got a solid feel for the main system, if you want to add them at all. (In the case of the weapon mastery rules, I personally would not, as they change the way different PCs/classes work in combat in ways that I don't like, but that's ultimately the DM's call.)
Honestly, though, the main reason I prefer the '81 B/X sets to their '83 equivalents have more to do with the organization and layout and "feel" of the rules. For example, the '83 basic set uses a kind of "choose-your-own-adventure" approach in the players book, with the aim of teaching young players how an RPG works. I think that's fine, but I find it makes the '83 basic rulebooks less useful as a table reference, compared to the '81 basic rulebook. I also prefer the varied "grittier" art of the '81 sets.
On a "big picture" scale, there's not much difference between the two (the '83 sets are basically an edit of the earlier rules, rather than a brand new system/game, although new stuff is found in the C and M sets, as I mentioned). It just boils down to what set of rules lights your fire, for whatever reason.
Quote from: GrabtharsHammer;992515I have a small group of three including myself (DMPC) and would love to play 1e, but as stated never played it (started with 2e). I know I'll have the DMG for certain calls, and I'm reading through the players, MM, etc. but I really want this rules light and fun, I'm not bogging myself with too much story, I have situations, items, and monsters in mind etc. would starting with Moldvay or Holmes (do they convert?) be easier? And advice is welcomed!
Most people I know run AD&D campaigns with the AD&D stuff (Classes, Monsters, Magic Items, Spells) but use B/X for combat/task resolution. That is roll 1d6 for initiative, high roll goes first, do one thing that round (move, attack, cast spell, etc).
Having said the above, if you want a concise and playable reinstatement of the AD&D rules for combat and task resolution download OSRIC for free.
http://www.lulu.com/shop/stewart-marshall/osric-a5-pdf/ebook/product-20697767.html
We all started with OD&D, and looked at AD&D as a series of sourcebooks to pull optional rules from at will. We laughed at the notion it was a different game. So starting with basic rules and adding bits as you go works perfectly well.
Also, the "gritiness" has nothing to do with the rules text, and everything to do with the referee.
As for AD&D Combat RAW, I use the following approximation.
1) The player declares their actions to the referee
2) The referee notes what the monsters are going to do
3) Both the DM and players roll a 1d6 for initiative
4) The opposing side's die indicates which segment of the round the other side goes on. For example the Orcs rolls a 3 and the party rolls a 5. The party starts on segment 3 and the orcs start on segment 5.
5) If a party member is firing a missile weapon and has a dexterity bonus then subtract it from the segment the party is starting on. This is the segment on which the missile weapon is fired. For example a party of Orcs roll a 4 and the party rolled a 3. And the bowman has a +2 dexterity adjustment for missiles. The initiative will be the bowman fires on segment 2 (4-2=2), the orcs attack on segment 3, and the rest of the party on segment 4.
6) Add the spell casting time (in segments) to the segment the party starts on. That the segment the spell will go off on. For example a party of Orcs rolls a 5, and the party rolls a 3. If the magic users choose to cast a 1 segment spell then he goes before the orcs. If he casts a 2 segment spell then he acts at the same time as the orcs. If he casts a 3 segment or longer spells he goes after the orcs.
7) If both sides are tied for initiative compare weapon speed. The lower weapon speed goes first.
8) If the difference between the weapons is five or more or twice that of the lower. Than the lower weapons speeds gets an extra attack. If the difference is 10 or more, the lower gets two extra attacks.
And that pretty much it. It not 100% the same due to the quirks of Gygax's writing. But produces the same result in my opinion.
Note I didn't get into surprise. The above assume that that been handled and resolved. The AD&D surprise rules are about determining how many segments of uninterrupted actions the surprising party has. Instead conducting combat in round, you handled it by segments. Movement is reduced to per segment, and spell casting time is not changed.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;992659Also, the "gritiness" has nothing to do with the rules text, and everything to do with the referee.
I agree, if you're talking about how the game plays. But as the referee, I spend some time with books and rules text, and some presentations give me more pleasure or inspiration than others. For example, I find the 1e DMG to be full of inspiration, and I enjoy reading and referencing it, regardless of what D&D edition I happen to be running. All purely subjective, of course.
Oh true enough. You can get an entire campaign just out of the narrative text.
Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;992672I agree, if you're talking about how the game plays. But as the referee, I spend some time with books and rules text, and some presentations give me more pleasure or inspiration than others. For example, I find the 1e DMG to be full of inspiration, and I enjoy reading and referencing it, regardless of what D&D edition I happen to be running. All purely subjective, of course.
Heck, I don't even play D&D but I like reading and using stuff out of the original DMG.
Quote from: estar;992656Having said the above, if you want a concise and playable reinstatement of the AD&D rules for combat and task resolution download OSRIC for free.
http://www.lulu.com/shop/stewart-marshall/osric-a5-pdf/ebook/product-20697767.html
Perfect. Thank you!
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;992659We all started with OD&D, and looked at AD&D as a series of sourcebooks to pull optional rules from at will. We laughed at the notion it was a different game. So starting with basic rules and adding bits as you go works perfectly well.
Awesome, I guess that was my goal all along, but having only really been a player wasn't sure if it was feasible. But of course the point of the game is that ANYTHING is possible. Thank you Lessnard - I mean Gronan...
Quote from: estar;992655Most people I know run AD&D campaigns with the AD&D stuff (Classes, Monsters, Magic Items, Spells) but use B/X for combat/task resolution. That is roll 1d6 for initiative, high roll goes first, do one thing that round (move, attack, cast spell, etc).
Great idea, thank you!
Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;992672I agree, if you're talking about how the game plays. But as the referee, I spend some time with books and rules text, and some presentations give me more pleasure or inspiration than others. For example, I find the 1e DMG to be full of inspiration, and I enjoy reading and referencing it, regardless of what D&D edition I happen to be running. All purely subjective, of course.
Just looking through the players there isn't this feeling of undertaking a default "heroic quest" like I got from 2e. Maybe it was the B&W art from Tramp & Sutherland, the assassin class, etc.
Quote from: GrabtharsHammer;992743Awesome, I guess that was my goal all along, but having only really been a player wasn't sure if it was feasible. But of course the point of the game is that ANYTHING is possible. Thank you Lessnard - I mean Gronan...
"The ring, Master, the ring!" * tug tug *
Quote from: GrabtharsHammer;992759Just looking through the players there isn't this feeling of undertaking a default "heroic quest" like I got from 2e. Maybe it was the B&W art from Tramp & Sutherland, the assassin class, etc.
Absolutely, positively, indubitably, undoubtedly not! The intention and vibe was much more "Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser," or at best "The Governor and Company of Adventurers of England trading into Hudson's Bay". Treasure hunters who happened to team up for a while, friendly rivals, or even out and out cutthroats. If you were anything but a Cleric or one of the occasional very rare Paladins, you were "Neutral".
The default is "Get gold, become name level, become a stronghold holder, and become a Power in the World." And only one ass fits on that throne.
Absolutely agree. That's the kind of vibe I prefer in D&D. The default "story" in my games is "adventurers band together in pursuit of fortune and glory, and to tread the jeweled thrones of the world beneath their sandaled feet." My campaigns draw more inspiration from swords-n-sorcery in the Leiber/Howard vein than from heroic epic quest fiction. The adventurers may not be paragons of virtue, and they're typically not out to save the world. Fortune and glory.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;992767Absolutely, positively, indubitably, undoubtedly not! The intention and vibe was much more "Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser," or at best "The Governor and Company of Adventurers of England trading into Hudson's Bay". Treasure hunters who happened to team up for a while, friendly rivals, or even out and out cutthroats. If you were anything but a Cleric or one of the occasional very rare Paladins, you were "Neutral".
The default is "Get gold, become name level, become a stronghold holder, and become a Power in the World." And only one ass fits on that throne.
I took ques from my friends who introduced me to the game, and what you said was definitely the tone. "We're grave robbers man" was a 1st level mantra...
The difference between a grave robber and a hero may just be some well planted rumors of undead in the area.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;992787The difference between a grave robber and a hero may just be some well planted rumors of undead in the area.
Clearing a local crypt of undead for the magistrate for aa agreed upon fee, and making off with all the loot therein. The latter may or may not have been part of the deal to begin with.
Quote from: estar;992655Most people I know run AD&D campaigns with the AD&D stuff (Classes, Monsters, Magic Items, Spells) but use B/X for combat/task resolution. That is roll 1d6 for initiative, high roll goes first, do one thing that round (move, attack, cast spell, etc).
Agreed.
Way back when, we dumped the AD&D ability score charts for the B/X ones too.
AKA, we ran B/X with AD&D classes.
Quote from: Spinachcat;992795Agreed.
Way back when, we dumped the AD&D ability score charts for the B/X ones too.
AKA, we ran B/X with AD&D classes.
The more I research how people play the older versions this seems to be a very common thread, or at least some combination of the two, maybe even some OD&D sprinkled in too. Fantastic stuff, love hearing about this kind of thing
Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;992771Absolutely agree. That's the kind of vibe I prefer in D&D. The default "story" in my games is "adventurers band together in pursuit of fortune and glory, and to tread the jeweled thrones of the world beneath their sandaled feet." My campaigns draw more inspiration from swords-n-sorcery in the Leiber/Howard vein than from heroic epic quest fiction. The adventurers may not be paragons of virtue, and they're typically not out to save the world. Fortune and glory.
Fafhrd and Gray Mouser are out for fortune but are far from amoral cutthroats. They fall in love, value friendship and community over riches.
Didn't say they were.
Here is Gronan's quote you 'absolutely' agreed with:
"Treasure hunters who happened to team up for a while, friendly rivals, or even out and out cutthroats. If you were anything but a Cleric or one of the occasional very rare Paladins, you were "Neutral".
The default is "Get gold, become name level, become a stronghold holder, and become a Power in the World." And only one ass fits on that throne."
That is not reflective of Fafhrd and Gray Mouser at all.
Okay, dude, you win. I surrender.
Sorry if the truth get you down, dude.
I can do naught but cry out "vae victis" and accept my fate.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;992767"Treasure hunters"
"Get gold"
Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;992771Fortune and glory.
Quote from: Voros;992813Fafhrd and Gray Mouser are out for fortune
Quote from: Voros;992817That is not reflective of Fafhrd and Gray Mouser at all.
Eh? Fuck it, I'm going to bed. :D
Come on CKruger you have to cherry pick those phrases and ignore the rest:
"The default is "Get gold, become name level, become a stronghold holder, and become a Power in the World." And only one ass fits on that throne."
That may be world of Nehwon but it is not how Fafhrd and Gray Mouser behave, in the early stories they have no interest in amassing worldly power and in the later stories they have romantic and communal ties and responsibilites but are hardly a Power in the World where only one can be on top.
"Treasure hunters who happened to team up for a while, friendly rivals, or even out and out cutthroats."
Mouser and Fafhrd are incredibly good friends, far from cutthroats who team up for a while or even friendly rivals. In many stories they are motivated by gold in the same way Han Solo is, they are rogues with hearts of gold and as often motivated by friendship, love, lust and community.
What Gronan describes fits the books of Glen Cook or Joe Abercrombie more so than Leiber. Leiber is far too humourous, generous and clever to buy into grimdark cynicism (not that Cook or even Abercrombie are just that either).
Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;992830I can do naught but cry out "vae victis" and accept my fate.
:eek: :D
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;992767Absolutely, positively, indubitably, undoubtedly not! The intention and vibe was much more "Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser," or at best "The Governor and Company of Adventurers of England trading into Hudson's Bay". Treasure hunters who happened to team up for a while, friendly rivals, or even out and out cutthroats. If you were anything but a Cleric or one of the occasional very rare Paladins, you were "Neutral".
The default is "Get gold, become name level, become a stronghold holder, and become a Power in the World." And only one ass fits on that throne.
I really need to sit down one of these days and work out modifications and alternatives for those of us who actually
like the Lawful/Good default, heroic epic quest model.
Quote from: Voros;992835Come on CKruger you have to cherry pick those phrases and ignore the rest:
"The default is "Get gold, become name level, become a stronghold holder, and become a Power in the World." And only one ass fits on that throne."
That may be world of Nehwon but it is not how Fafhrd and Gray Mouser behave, in the early stories they have no interest in amassing worldly power and in the later stories they have romantic and communal ties and responsibilites but are hardly a Power in the World where only one can be on top.
"Treasure hunters who happened to team up for a while, friendly rivals, or even out and out cutthroats."
Mouser and Fafhrd are incredibly good friends, far from cutthroats who team up for a while or even friendly rivals. In many stories they are motivated by gold in the same way Han Solo is, they are rogues with hearts of gold and as often motivated by friendship, love, lust and community.
What Gronan describes fits the books of Glen Cook or Joe Abercrombie more so than Leiber. Leiber is far too humourous, generous and clever to buy into grimdark cynicism (not that Cook or even Abercrombie are just that either).
You're the one who was going forum warrior for exactitudes and then said "not at all". Live like Rainman, die like Rainman. ;)
I'll agree 100% of what Gronan said is not Leiber, I also don't think that's exactly what PJ meant, as what he said himself wasn't 100% of what Gronan said, it was more a "Sword and Sorcery" not "Epic High Fantasy" statement.
It seems more like a pet peeve got grazed than any deliberate mischaracterization of Leiber's writing.
True, nothing against Gronan, I think the style of play he describes is a fun approach myself. As a big Leiber fan as you know I often find the talk of his writing a bit reductive is all.
And in terms of what Armchair said regarding heroic play, the inclusion of the Paladin and even the cleric make it pretty clear that Lawful heroic play was more than just possible using D&D.
Quote from: CRKrueger;992941You're the one who was going forum warrior for exactitudes and then said "not at all". Live like Rainman, die like Rainman. ;)
I'll agree 100% of what Gronan said is not Leiber, I also don't think that's exactly what PJ meant, as what he said himself wasn't 100% of what Gronan said, it was more a "Sword and Sorcery" not "Epic High Fantasy" statement.
It seems more like a pet peeve got grazed than any deliberate mischaracterization of Leiber's writing.
Pedantry is the recourse of those who have nothing to say but cannot bear to remain silent.
Quote from: GrabtharsHammer;992797The more I research how people play the older versions this seems to be a very common thread, or at least some combination of the two, maybe even some OD&D sprinkled in too. Fantastic stuff, love hearing about this kind of thing
It wasn't just the grognards of the period taking that approach, many kids and teens played a mashup of B/X or Red Box and AD&D 1e. Often without fulling realizing it as they skipped most of the rules in AD&D and went straight to the magic items, spells and MM.
QuoteAnd in terms of what Armchair said regarding heroic play, the inclusion of the Paladin and even the cleric make it pretty clear that Lawful heroic play was more than just possible using D&D.
Possible, yes, by all means. But are the as-written rules of OD&D, Basic, or AD&D the best for it, or could they be tweaked to better encourage and support it?
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;992901I really need to sit down one of these days and work out modifications and alternatives for those of us who actually like the Lawful/Good default, heroic epic quest model.
You don't have to do anything except role play.
LG types are generally well liked, especially the Paladin (check out loyalty/reaction bonuses - and Pally's CHA starts at 17). It follows that many people will naturally want to help and reward them, more so than a bunch of wandering graverobbers. Good takes care of good, something non good types find hard to believe.
Quote from: GrabtharsHammer;992797The more I research how people play the older versions this seems to be a very common thread, or at least some combination of the two, maybe even some OD&D sprinkled in too. Fantastic stuff, love hearing about this kind of thing
Basic (3 versions!) and AD&D were not released as complete games, but rolled out over a period of years, so if you started in the later 70's it was necessary to mix and match whatever rules from whatever editions were available. Of course OD&D also had its own supplement library, but it was released as its own thing. But yeah, still similar.
For example, the first year of gaming we had a mash of Holmes, Monster Manual, White Box and.Blackmoor supplement (somehow we missed Greyhawk). And then we discovered Dragon and White Dwarf. More stuff to try out.
First time I met an AD&D by-the-book type* was in 1984. All his books were pristine. It was like these were his sacred texts, and the rest of us veterans just wanted to rock and roll.
*Don't trust those people. They are gaming vampires, trying to suck out your fun.
Quote from: saskganesh;992970You don't have to do anything except role play.
LG types are generally well liked, especially the Paladin (check out loyalty/reaction bonuses - and Pally's CHA starts at 17). It follows that many people will naturally want to help and reward them, more so than a bunch of wandering graverobbers. Good takes care of good, something non good types find hard to believe.
Plus, in OD&D evil clerics CANNOT heal, period. Amazing incentive to be pals with a few good types, even if you yourself are neutral.
Also, once the undead start showing up, the Good cleric is everybody's best pal!
I'm looking through my materials and can't wait to get our game going. Thanks everyone for their input, I'll update as I go even though no one gives a shit because evil clerics can't heal. Or whatever.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;992953Pedantry is the recourse of those who have nothing to say but cannot bear to remain silent.
You realize the irony of responding with that, I assume! :D
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;992901I really need to sit down one of these days and work out modifications and alternatives for those of us who actually like the Lawful/Good default, heroic epic quest model.
You could always get a copy of 2e AD&D for flavor, and use whichever ruleset you prefer (and/or mix and match in basic).
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;992960Possible, yes, by all means. But are the as-written rules of OD&D, Basic, or AD&D the best for it, or could they be tweaked to better encourage and support it?
Honestly, other than xp=gp vaguely incentivizing a practical mercenary quality over focusing on doing the right thing at all times, there's very little in the rules to discourage heroic play (
cautious heroic play). And as Gronan points out, certain incentives to at least be within 'good-will-do-business-with-you' range of heroism.
Quote from: Willie the Duck;993057You could always get a copy of 2e AD&D for flavor, and use whichever ruleset you prefer (and/or mix and match in basic).
I have 2E--original and Premium editions. :) Plus the RC and the BECMI boxes. :)
QuoteHonestly, other than xp=gp vaguely incentivizing a practical mercenary quality over focusing on doing the right thing at all times, there's very little in the rules to discourage heroic play (cautious heroic play). And as Gronan points out, certain incentives to at least be within 'good-will-do-business-with-you' range of heroism.
XP for GP was the big one I was thinking of, along with reducing the lethality curve and maybe tweaking classes a bit. The major question is whether 2E, BECMI, or C&C works best as a baseline for the lighter and more traditional approach. (For heavier rules, there's Hero; for more over-the-top, BESM or 4E.)
Quote from: Willie the Duck;993057Honestly, other than xp=gp vaguely incentivizing a practical mercenary quality over focusing on doing the right thing at all times, there's very little in the rules to discourage heroic play (cautious heroic play). And as Gronan points out, certain incentives to at least be within 'good-will-do-business-with-you' range of heroism.
And take a look what happens in OD&D when a Patriarch gets a stronghold. He/she gets TONS of extra goodies for being a good cleric.
You can easily be a lawful good-guy type in OD&D. Just set up a world where NPCs will respond favorably.
The default world of Greyhawk as Gary ran it, alas, is WAY too inspired by Dying Earth. It's one thing for somebody to betray you for advantage, but on DE about 95% of the people will fuck you over just because.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;993073I have 2E--original and Premium editions. :) Plus the RC and the BECMI boxes. :)
XP for GP was the big one I was thinking of, along with reducing the lethality curve and maybe tweaking classes a bit. The major question is whether 2E, BECMI, or C&C works best as a baseline for the lighter and more traditional approach. (For heavier rules, there's Hero; for more over-the-top, BESM or 4E.)
To me it is BECMI but I'm biased as that's my favourite edition.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;993074And take a look what happens in OD&D when a Patriarch gets a stronghold. He/she gets TONS of extra goodies for being a good cleric.
I see they get strongholds full of Heroes, superheroes, Ents, and Hippogryphs (as opposed to the evil high priest's trolls, vampires, spectres, and wild apes) and may demand 10% carried wealth as a tithe. Were you thinking of anything else?
QuoteYou can easily be a lawful good-guy type in OD&D. Just set up a world where NPCs will respond favorably.
The default world of Greyhawk as Gary ran it, alas, is WAY too inspired by Dying Earth. It's one thing for somebody to betray you for advantage, but on DE about 95% of the people will fuck you over just because.
I think Vance underestimates the value that such a world would have for a reputation for not screwing people over left and right. But regardless, it fits the fiction (which is still awesome). We just don't have to be beholden to that when creating our world.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;993073I have 2E--original and Premium editions. :) Plus the RC and the BECMI boxes. :)
XP for GP was the big one I was thinking of, along with reducing the lethality curve and maybe tweaking classes a bit. The major question is whether 2E, BECMI, or C&C works best as a baseline for the lighter and more traditional approach. (For heavier rules, there's Hero; for more over-the-top, BESM or 4E.)
The lethality curve is your call. TSR D&D really is not set up for you to just tilt at every windmill and challenge every evil-doer (I have my serious doubts about being able to play the 1e Cavalier as written, as an example).
Xp=gp is certainly not something you need to keep if you want to incentivize non-profiteering behavior (although I've seen plenty of noble actions in my BECMI games, which are gp=xp). IMO, the rules exist to get you the DM to the point where you don't need them, so if you can fairly arbitrate an xp-for-heroic-task system, go ahead, and it should work well with either 1e or 2e (or b/x, becmi, etc.).
Vance is an interesting D&D influence. I embrace the "Vancian magic" thing in D&D with no restraints. I find the most D&D-ish inspiration in his earlier stuff like The Dying Earth. What great characters (and names)! Chun the Unavoidable (and Liane the Wayfarer), Turjan, Mazirian the Magician, Pandelume and his vats, et cetera. I enjoyed reading the Cugel stuff, but I don't draw much inspiration from it. YMMV, of course.