OD&D was a glorious mess and that is why I love it so much.

As someone who started with 3.5, OD&D feels a lot more liberating both as a player and a DM.

Quote from: estar;1058027Great RPG, presentation needed work but understandable given it was the first of its kind. Nailed it with the addition of the Greyhawk supplement.

I prefer OD&D without supplements. The introduction of huge bonuses for high ability scores such as STR threw the whole balance of the original system out the window. When the game establishes that perhaps an ogre could do +2 damage due to great strength then you throw in fighters with the possibility of +4 to hit and +6 damage it throws that whole paradigm out the window.

Quote from: Franky;1058284If strictly by the 3 LBBS, How did the MU get the staff?  For some odd reason they were not listed for sale along with other weapons or equipment.  MU's were not *allowed* to use them anyway They could only arm themselves with  daggers.  Although they could apparently carry magical staves, including the Staff of Wizardry, which was +1 to hit.  But the MU could not *technically* use it, at least as a weapon.

This, I think, was the first rule that we deliberately ignored.  Of course a MU could carry a staff., and crack a few skulls with it too.  I always thought it a strange omission.

The rulebooks were terribly organized.  The game was marvelous.  It had been heavily play-tested and everything worked pretty well. Until Greyhawk released at any rate.

Never had a problem with a MU using a stick. Hit roll was still as crappy due to class and damage was the same as with a dagger,

Amber and Lords of Olympus are proof that you don't need a 'randomizer element' in the mechanics of an RPG.  The Players are randomizer enough.

Quote from: Doc Sammy;1059194OD&D was a glorious mess and that is why I love it so much.

As someone who started with 3.5, OD&D feels a lot more liberating both as a player and a DM.

Well said. There is such a different feel from early and later editions, so a person who started with 3.5 would be used to the details. OD&D removes most of that and lets one focus on play, not modifiers.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1059719Amber and Lords of Olympus are proof that you don't need a 'randomizer element' in the mechanics of an RPG.  The Players are randomizer enough.

That's not randomness. You could, I suppose, call it variability.

Quote from: Bren;1059775That's not randomness. You could, I suppose, call it variability.

If you were reading my recent LoO updates, you'd know that what at least a couple of the PCs are doing would totally count as randomness.

Quote from: Razor 007;1058023Was OD&D simply marvelous, or was it a glorious mess?

The game, as cobbled together between EGG and DA, and communicated by oral tradition to others (and communicated thereafter to others) is simply marvelous. I actually think that, provided you aren't looking to evolve in a specific direction (the one we ended up going for AD&D and the other basic/classic versions), the core (pre-supplement) game creates a tighter system that plays better as its own thing (minimizing direct mechanical uses for stats, for example). It is a great game by and of itself, divorced of its relationship with what came after.

The game, as communicated via the printed books, is closer to a glorious mess. It is what should have been a first draft, which was submitted to the authors friends, loved ones, old English teachers, and whomever else. Then rewritten based on those red-pen marks. Then submitted to a paid editor, and rewritten again. And then tested against people new to the concept of TTRPGs and wargaming, to see if they understood. And after a rewrite based on that, published. That didn't happen, and attempts at clarification (such as Holmes, Moldvay, etc.) are considered distinct entities (and should, as they deviate significantly in terms of content).

So there's multiple 'versions' of oD&D--1) one which the lucky ones who got taught by Gary or by someone taught by Gary got to experience, 2) the ones people with a wargaming background but no one 'in the know' to teach them might have gotten, and 3) the ones people who purchase the book cold might have had. Obviously people like me who started with a later version (BECMI) and came back with an analytical eye got a 4th experience of the game.

Quote from: finarvynThe thing for me is that I never thought of OD&D as a "mess" at the time, and it was only years later when folks told me that they didn't understand the game that I even pondered if it was well written or not. From the perspective of a middle-school teen who had been playing hex-and-chit wargames and Chainmail for a year or two before discovering OD&D, the rules seemed pretty straightforward.

Having now read Tracticks, Chainmail, and several other wargames of the era, I'd still say that the LBBs were pretty confusingly put together, even in comparison to the rest of the stuff out there at the time.

Quote from: jeff37923;1058283(No, I am NOT saying that the OP is wrong for asking. I'm saying that taken to extremes, nothing about our favorite hobby survives deconstruction.)

Definitely.