TheRPGSite

In this thread (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=29455), Old Geezer opined that his biggest regret about OD&D was the lack of morale rules.  This led me to contemplate what my biggest regret was, and what -- had I been standing over Gary Gygax's shoulder and murmuring, "Dude, you really need to write this in" -- I'd have wanted to see in those rules.  So what's yours?

Caveat: we're talking first gen RPG, 1974.  The same publishing constraints apply, so you might be able to talk them into bumping the first or third books up a single sheet of paper (= 4 pages), and that's it.  Also, no massive rules rewrite; I'd love to say "skill system," and that could've fit, but that'd mean having to redo most of the first book.

That Chainmail wasn't included in the boxed set.

Four things come to mind any one of which would have helped quite a bit:

1. Poison rules. What does cobra poison really do? How about rattlesnake or black mamba or scorpion? How long does it take to effect you? What are the chances of survival? One time, back in my high school days in the mid 80's, I attempted to research such stuff. I looked in a dozen magazines, books, encyclopedias, etc. but couldn't find any hard, useable data.

2. Town and castle stats. How big and populous is a typical medieval village, town, city? How much of that population are farmers, fisherman, trade folk? How many guards would a castle have? How many maids and cooks would it need? How long does it take to construct a tower or wall? How many workers would that take? How much land does a Duke control vs. a Count or an Earl?

3. Emphasize, repeatedly, that magic items should be rare. Not everyone should have every body part covered with magic. No mid-level PC should go "Eh, another +2 sword, who cares? We also got a +1 ring of protection, anyone want? No? Right, we'll sell that junk too. 5 more pots, we'll test those out later..." My early games were too monty-haulish and I didn't know better.

4. Horse and boat data. How fast and far can a horse travel in a day? How much weight can one carry or haul? How fast is boat travel, upriver, downriver, across a lake? How about a medieval ship on the open seas? How large are those? How many crew and passengers and cargo?

Rules about how to play the game is great and all, but boy was I in need of hard data on what a realistic environment was like.

Alignment. I'd beg Gary to not include any rules for it at all. Have Law and Chaos as setting elements, sure, but codifying morality into the horrible 9 spoke system that would come later lead down a road to ruin.

I regret Don Kaye dying in 1975.

He was the only person who could tell Gary to pack it up his ass and make Gary listen.  The history of TSR would have turned out vastly different.

Quote from: Old Geezer;747616I regret Don Kaye dying in 1975.

Yes. This.

i) Guidance for ruling on the dozen or so most common non-combat activities (climbing, jumping, overland travel etc).

ii) Armour absorbs damage rather than increase AC - would aslo logically lead to a static defense increasing with level/class

iii) Avoiding the rabit hole of "new class to replicate beloved literary character" and find a way to cover that within the 4 base classes (so no Ranger = Aragorn but Aragorn is a fighter who can track and has some racial features). I think this would prevent a lot of later game bloat.

iv) Look at the 4 base classes and re-access their balance more logically
MU - No armour, weak combat, d4hd, powerful spells
Cleric - Armour, less weak combat, d6hd, less powerful spells
Thief - Weak armour, better combat, d8hd, no spells but theif skill (and handle these better)
Fighter - Armour, strong combat, d10hd, no spells

"Hey Mr. Gygax! I've got some great news. This thing is going to blow up big time. Seriously lots of folks are going to be playing it, not just war gamers. So could you know... Explain why some things are the way they are? Maybe write up a little something about how the game is supposed to be played instead of assuming everyone knows?"

"Oh and here are some hot stock tips and the next three Super Bowl and World Series winners, you don't need to let the blumes in"

Drop the "your-race-is-your-class" thing.

Quote from: Piestrio;747621"Hey Mr. Gygax! I've got some great news. This thing is going to blow up big time. Seriously lots of folks are going to be playing it, not just war gamers. So could you know... Explain why some things are the way they are? Maybe write up a little something about how the game is supposed to be played instead of assuming everyone knows?"

"Oh and here are some hot stock tips and the next three Super Bowl and World Series winners, you don't need to let the blumes in"

"Listen to this guy."

That I've never gotten to play

For my own part, while I would've wanted a complete overhaul in tone, the fact is that whatever we made of the game, it was written as a wargame for wargamers.  It's not that Gygax screwed up: it's that neither he nor anyone else knew any different then.  Yet.

As I said, I'd have loved for there to have been a skill system rather than class/level, but that would've been a completely different set of rules.  So given my caveats, my two choices would boil down to:

1) Forget alignment.  Completely.  Absolutely.  If there was one rule that had a poisonous, pernicious, lasting and idiotic sway over the hobby, this was it.  Alignment could without a drop of angst have been left out of D&D from the start, and at any time thereafter.  (The enduring irony of the protagonist of the books contributing most to the 70s Law/Chaos zeitgeist being a worshiper of Chaos invariably working for Law, something a lot of DMs would never permit, hasn't escaped me.)

2) The bigger single rule change, though, would be surprisingly simple: fixed hit points.  Something easy, say, HP = CON + 2 or 3/level?  IMHO, the most serious bar to roleplaying (vs wargaming) is that low-level OD&D characters had the survivability of chum in the water.  Make them likely to last past the first session, and there's incentive to invest in them.

Quote from: Ravenswing;747632For my own part, while I would've wanted a complete overhaul in tone, the fact is that whatever we made of the game, it was written as a wargame for wargamers.  It's not that Gygax screwed up: it's that neither he nor anyone else knew any different then.  Yet.

As I said, I'd have loved for there to have been a skill system rather than class/level, but that would've been a completely different set of rules.  So given my caveats, my two choices would boil down to:

1) Forget alignment.  Completely.  Absolutely.  If there was one rule that had a poisonous, pernicious, lasting and idiotic sway over the hobby, this was it.  Alignment could without a drop of angst have been left out of D&D from the start, and at any time thereafter.  (The enduring irony of the protagonist of the books contributing most to the 70s Law/Chaos zeitgeist being a worshiper of Chaos invariably working for Law, something a lot of DMs would never permit, hasn't escaped me.)

2) The bigger single rule change, though, would be surprisingly simple: fixed hit points.  Something easy, say, HP = CON + 2 or 3/level?  IMHO, the most serious bar to roleplaying (vs wargaming) is that low-level OD&D characters had the survivability of chum in the water.  Make them likely to last past the first session, and there's incentive to invest in them.

From everything I've read about Gary he'd probably look askance at wanting to "invest" in a character and so would probably not have any interest in incentivizing that.

my biggest regret about OD&D is that I never started with it

Quote from: YourSwordisMine;747631That I've never gotten to play

Fixed this one.

Everyone who's a fan of D&D should give OD&D a try at least once, methinks.

I wouldn't change a thing.

I've found over time that focusing on what might have been to be self destructive and prevents us from enjoying what we have.  Plus I also believe that life is so complex that just changing one thing wouldn't result in what you wanted.

We have the lifetime we have...let's be happy with that.

Quote from: YourSwordisMine;747631That I've never gotten to play

Dude, I was running and you were invited. :p

Could use some more details on magic item creation.

However I agree with Old Geezer and Benoist. I would have Don Kaye back.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;747713Dude, I was running and you were invited. :p

I know! But stuff kept happening...

Quote from: estar;747721Could use some more details on magic item creation.

If every magic item had been described as the Artifacts & Wondrous items were, in the 1eDMG, and the monsters were all described in 'unique' format then I dream that we would still be in the middle of that fabulous 70's weirdness.

First off, I'm confused by the OP. I just re-read OD&D yesterday and there are definitely morale rules in the first book!


Anyway, I think the biggest thing I would change if I had a time machine and the psychic ability to control the minds of game designers would be the way the 'alternate combat system' works. If you ever play OD&D using Chainmail combat, you will find that fighting men become very powerful as an offensive force in combat within a few levels. By level 4 or 5 they are mowing down common foes and can stand up to powerful beasts. Keep exactly the same character with exactly the same stats, HP and equipment but switch to the 'alternate combat system' (d20 vs. AC, etc.), and your fighter is not significantly better at delivering attacks than he or she would be as a magic user or cleric, and has barely advanced from the start of play. It is kind of shocking when you crunch a few numbers in your head (or better yet play Chainmail!). If I had to guess I would say it wasn't totally intentional - they just wanted something that ran faster and didn't require a copy of Chainmail and this is what they came up with. You could argue that a huge driver of the re-engineering of the game in 3E and 4E was an attempt to finally restore the original dynamic that a moderate-level warrior in Chainmail is actually really tough.

It's 1967, and instead of Siege of Bodenburg, somebody puts a copy of Breitenfeld in Gary Gygax's hands, and rather than writing a medieval wargame, Mr Gygax would develop a set of English Civil War or Thirty Years War rules that Dave Arneson would tap to create the first roleplaying game, Swashbucklers & Sorcerers.

:)

Quote from: Black Vulmea;747763It's 1967, and instead of Siege of Bodenburg, somebody puts a copy of Breitenfeld in Gary Gygax's hands, and rather than writing a medieval wargame, Mr Gygax would develop a set of English Civil War or Thirty Years War rules that Dave Arneson would tap to create the first roleplaying game, Swashbucklers & Sorcerers.

:)

Less Three Hearts and Three Lions and more A Midsummer's Tempest as the primary influence for D&D, then? :)

That Arneson and Gygax had a falling out.

No D&D/AD&D schism, and maybe more whacky, Blackmoor/First Fantasy Campaign influence in the game.

I can't complain about OD&D. It's like complaining about Flash Gordon movies in the 1930s or complaining about Ultima I. OD&D was carving new ground and gets a pass on the woulda-coulda-shoulda.

However, morale is something that should be in all editions. I built it into 4e and the combat works so much better for it.

Quote from: Old Geezer;747616I regret Don Kaye dying in 1975.

He was the only person who could tell Gary to pack it up his ass and make Gary listen.  The history of TSR would have turned out vastly different.

Is this discussed in your book?

If not, time for another chapter! I've heard only rumors of Don Kaye so it would be interesting to hear real details and thoughts.

Quote from: Spinachcat;747935I can't complain about OD&D. It's like complaining about Flash Gordon movies in the 1930s or complaining about Ultima I. OD&D was carving new ground and gets a pass on the woulda-coulda-shoulda.

However, morale is something that should be in all editions. I built it into 4e and the combat works so much better for it.

Well, it's mentioned in OD&D; for instance, it says that Goblins get -1 on morale in bright sunlight.  However, it doesn't explain what that MEANS.  If you know CHAINMAIL backwards and forwards, it's obvious.

I find it... ironic, perhaps, or something... that so much pouring over has been done over D&D, and so much micro-examination of some things, but an amazing number of people never even wondered what "morale" meant.

I like to believe that if Gary knew that so many non-wargamers would play D&D, he would have incorporated the rules into OD&D and removed references to chainmail, making OD&D a complete standalone game

Quote from: thedungeondelver;747848Less Three Hearts and Three Lions and more A Midsummer's Tempest as the primary influence for D&D, then? :)

:hatsoff:

Quote from: Sacrosanct;747964I like to believe that if Gary knew that so many non-wargamers would play D&D, he would have incorporated the rules into OD&D and removed references to chainmail, making OD&D a complete standalone game

I think that's "on the nosey," as Eyegor said.

Gary and Don printed 1000 copies of OD&D in the first printing.  We thought they were insanely optimistic to print that many.

Do you think he would have just dropped Chainmail all together and moved on, or tried to integrate it as the foundation of the core rules?

That ability scores are pointless.

Fortunately B/X came along and fixed that.

My biggest regret about OD&D?

That so many of the players, based on their tortured interpretations and shrill, anime-schoolgirl-like shrieks of outrage, are so fucking stupid it's a miracle they can shit unassisted.

Quote from: Old Geezer;748342My biggest regret about OD&D?

That so many of the players, based on their tortured interpretations and shrill, anime-schoolgirl-like shrieks of outrage, are so fucking stupid it's a miracle they can shit unassisted.

Oh, come on. You know that the overwhelming majority of those shrieking about how horrible OD&D is have never played... Probably because they are too busy taking court-ordered potty training.

Quote from: talysman;748347Oh, come on. You know that the overwhelming majority of those shrieking about how horrible OD&D is have never played... Probably because they are too busy taking court-ordered potty training.

^
|
|
Okay, THAT's funny.

Quote from: Kiero;748289That ability scores are pointless.

Fortunately B/X came along and fixed that.

I have yet to find them pointless. When testing an ability score for something, the score matters, that's why it exists.

If you needed to move a heavy object strength is pointless?

What about bonuses to earned experience?

 A few months ago a cleric in my campaign was killed. He had a 7 CON and the village priest was unable to revive him. I don't think having a 13 CON (and thus automatically surviving the process) would be seen as pointless.

If you are one of the knuckleheads that thinks the only point to ability scores is via a bonus to die rolls then it may be you who is missing the point of the scores to begin with.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;748352If you are one of the knuckleheads that thinks the only point to ability scores is via a bonus to die rolls then it may be you who is missing the point of the scores to begin with.

Ding!  Winner!

Quote from: Exploderwizard;748352If you are one of the knuckleheads that thinks the only point to ability scores is via a bonus to die rolls then it may be you who is missing the point of the scores to begin with.

That's what happens when later editions boiled all the life out of them...

Quote from: YourSwordisMine;748371That's what happens when later editions boiled all the life out of them...

When later editions were put in the hands of overgrown children who could not bear the word "no"...

Sorry, I didn't realise this was another scheduled edition of OG hosts his sycophants for a circle-jerk. My bad.

Quote from: Kiero;748389Sorry, I didn't realise this was another scheduled edition of OG hosts his sycophants for a circle-jerk. My bad.

Ding ding ding!

My biggest regret is giving away the White Box I picked up out of a discount bin for five bucks while on vacation back in '83, to a guy who ripped it up and threw it in the garbage when he decided D&D was satanic.

I similarly regret giving my Warhammer Mass Combat Roleplay (first edition) away when I was getting married and worried it was too scary looking and might bias my wife against my hobby.

Friend I gave it to got murdered and his Baptist family threw it away for being satanic.  Don't know if they ripped it up or burned it first.

Quote from: David Johansen;748419I similarly regret giving my Warhammer Mass Combat Roleplay (first edition) away when I was getting married and worried it was too scary looking and might bias my wife against my hobby.

I admit I got past that by the simple expedient of -- my very first girlfriend excepted -- never dating, marrying or even having a casual fling with anyone who wasn't a gamer.  :D

At the time I really wasn't sure I was going to be a gamer anymore.  Ah...hormones...they makes us stupid.

Still married, twenty years on, and my wife will game but isn't what you'd call a gamer.

Plenty of things I would've begged Gary to ommit/change/add but if I had to choose just one it would be to not include Clerics.

Quote from: Kiero;748389Sorry, I didn't realise this was another scheduled edition of OG hosts his sycophants for a circle-jerk. My bad.

I would be happy to hear why you think ability scores are worthless and discuss the issue.

I don't know for sure, but suspect he meant something that has often been said about various forms of D&D: the values of your ability scores make little difference to your character's actual ability to do most things, at least in the RAW.

Of course all editions (including OD&D) have a few advantages or disadvantages that kick in at certain thresholds, but for most ranges of most stats it just doesn't matter. e.g., in most editions a ST 12 character isn't really significantly stronger than a ST 9 character, at least in any sense that gets expressed in the game rules.

This critique is obviously true if you are basing your arguments on what the words printed in these games actually say. So, the only counter-argument I suspect we'll hear is that you were supposed to intuit the intention that you would go create your own set of shadow rules where ability scores make a difference.

If someone has been waiting to say something else insulting about people who read and discuss what these old games actually say, this is your cue!

"My only regret is that I have but one life to lose for OD&D."--Oris, elf.  Died at level 2.

Quote from: Spinal Tarp;748480Plenty of things I would've begged Gary to ommit/change/add but if I had to choose just one it would be to not include Clerics.

Yeah, whenever I make home brewed games I re-imagine clerics as either some form of wizard or some form of fighter, depending on what they like to do in the game; the thing that makes them special is a social role as a leader in a church, and perhaps access to some sort of miraculous powers. I don't really like them as an alternate spell caster class.

Quote from: Ravenswing;747599So what's yours?

Never played it. :(

It's not easy to find old school gamers in Argentina. I'm trying to start a Dungeon Crawl Classics game online, but so far I only have one interested player.

Quote from: Larsdangly;748516I don't know for sure, but suspect he meant something that has often been said about various forms of D&D: the values of your ability scores make little difference to your character's actual ability to do most things, at least in the RAW.

Of course all editions (including OD&D) have a few advantages or disadvantages that kick in at certain thresholds, but for most ranges of most stats it just doesn't matter. e.g., in most editions a ST 12 character isn't really significantly stronger than a ST 9 character, at least in any sense that gets expressed in the game rules.

This critique is obviously true if you are basing your arguments on what the words printed in these games actually say. So, the only counter-argument I suspect we'll hear is that you were supposed to intuit the intention that you would go create your own set of shadow rules where ability scores make a difference.

If someone has been waiting to say something else insulting about people who read and discuss what these old games actually say, this is your cue!

I have no idea who taught you math but for most of the world, a 12 is greater than a 9.

A 9 Stat provides a 45% chance to succeed an ability check. A 12 stat provides a 60% chance to succeed.  A 15% greater chance of a success might not seem like whole lot but over time it will matter.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;748542I have no idea who taught you math but for most of the world, a 12 is greater than a 9.

A 9 Stat provides a 45% chance to succeed an ability check. A 12 stat provides a 60% chance to succeed.  A 15% greater chance of a success might not seem like whole lot but over time it will matter.

You are being totally obtuse. The ability check mechanic you are implying isn't part of most editions of D&D. In most editions of D&D, there really isn't any difference between these two ST values in any of the presented mechanics for saves, attacks and other actions.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;748542I have no idea who taught you math but for most of the world, a 12 is greater than a 9.

A 9 Stat provides a 45% chance to succeed an ability check. A 12 stat provides a 60% chance to succeed.  A 15% greater chance of a success might not seem like whole lot but over time it will matter.

Quote from: Larsdangly;748561You are being totally obtuse. The ability check mechanic you are implying isn't part of most editions of D&D. In most editions of D&D, there really isn't any difference between these two ST values in any of the presented mechanics for saves, attacks and other actions.

Here's the problem right here:

Quote from: Men & Magic, p10Strength is the prime requisite for fighters ... Strength will also aid in opening traps and so on.

Intelligence is the prime requisite for magical types ... Intelligence will also affect referees' decisions as to whether or not certain action would be taken, and it allows additional languages to be spoken.

Wisdom is the prime requisite for Clerics ... Wisdom rating will act much as does that for intelligence.

The rules as written tell the GM to use ability scores to test various actions and situations, but it doesn't say how, and it doesn't give an exhaustive list of when to use them. Because different GMs have different ideas about how and when they should be used.

Quote from: talysman;748563Here's the problem right here:



The rules as written tell the GM to use ability scores to test various actions and situations, but it doesn't say how, and it doesn't give an exhaustive list of when to use them. Because different GMs have different ideas about how and when they should be used.

This is very true.  I think it was about 6 months or so ago I was going though old Dragon magazines and there was an article from 1979 about clarifying ability check rules.  That of course implies ability checks were used in OD&D by most gamers.

*edit*  Now that I look, there are rules for ability checks in Dragon #1 from 1976.  So an ability score of 12 vs 9 is in fact a significant difference.

Quote from: Larsdangly;748561You are being totally obtuse. The ability check mechanic you are implying isn't part of most editions of D&D. In most editions of D&D, there really isn't any difference between these two ST values in any of the presented mechanics for saves, attacks and other actions.

Exactly. No bonuses to bog standard die rolls thus useless to fucknuggets who can't see anything beyond bonuses.

Once you begin the bonus chase it never stops. Well shit I didn't get a STR bonus guess I can't play a fighter. :rolleyes:

Even worse, it escalates. Well yeah I got a STR bonus but it isn't an 18 so I'm a sucky fighter compared to Bob who does have an 18. Already the idea that if certain benchmarks aren't met then the character is USELESS having never seen a moment of actual play.

The characters are just fine. It is the players who are becoming more and more useless as this shit mentality gains popularity.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;748571Well yeah I got a STR bonus but it isn't an 18 so I'm a sucky fighter compared to Bob who does have an 18. Already the idea that if certain benchmarks aren't met then the character is USELESS having never seen a moment of actual play.

The characters are just fine. It is the players who are becoming more and more useless as this shit mentality gains popularity.

This.  Crom's hairy nutsack, this.

Quote from: talysman;748563The rules as written tell the GM to use ability scores to test various actions and situations, but it doesn't say how, and it doesn't give an exhaustive list of when to use them. Because different GMs have different ideas about how and when they should be used.

And that was a feature, not a bug.

The problem is that most people are fucking stupid.

Six months after the game first went on sale Gary kept wondering why people needed every tiny detail spelled out rather than simply deciding.

After two years or so he realized that there was money to be made by writing more rules, and AD&D was born.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;748502I would be happy to hear why you think ability scores are worthless and discuss the issue.

I think that using ability scores to differentiate characters in play is discrimination and emphasizes that people who are inferior are instantly worthless. I would have thought Kiero with his brilliant track record in social justice, pointing out the blatant carelessness in upholding a gold coinage standard in a fantasy role playing game and how it implicitly supports the idea of slavery, would have noticed. I am shocked. Shocked, I tell you.

All characters should have equal opportunities in the game, regardless of their ability scores. Otherwise, it just perpetuates injustices dumb people have had to suffer from smarter ones, weak ones from stronger ones, careless ones from wiser ones, since the dawn of time. We can't have that.

Thank you. :hatsoff:

Quote from: Benoist;748582I think that using ability scores to differentiate characters in play is discrimination and emphasizes that people who are inferior are instantly worthless. I would have thought Kiero with his brilliant track record in social justice, pointing out the blatant carelessness in upholding a gold coinage standard in a fantasy role playing game and how it implicitly supports the idea of slavery, would have noticed. I am shocked. Shocked, I tell you.

All characters should have equal opportunities in the game, regardless of their ability scores. Otherwise, it just perpetuates injustices dumb people have had to suffer from smarter ones, weak ones from stronger ones, careless ones from wiser ones, since the dawn of time. We can't have that.

Thank you. :hatsoff:

Annnndddd   the winner of this thread by HKO (Hilarious Knockout)........

BENOIST!!!!  :cheerleader:

Quote from: Exploderwizard;748352

Quote from: Kiero;748289That ability scores are pointless.

Fortunately B/X came along and fixed that.

I have yet to find them pointless. When testing an ability score for something, the score matters, that's why it exists.

If you needed to move a heavy object strength is pointless?

What about bonuses to earned experience?

 A few months ago a cleric in my campaign was killed. He had a 7 CON and the village priest was unable to revive him. I don't think having a 13 CON (and thus automatically surviving the process) would be seen as pointless.

If you are one of the knuckleheads that thinks the only point to ability scores is via a bonus to die rolls then it may be you who is missing the point of the scores to begin with.

I never played OD&D, unless you want to count Holmes which is Cliff's Notes OD&D. I often thought the bonuses and penalties for ability scores were such that you could just as easily do away with them entirely. This comes in handy when introducing newbies to the game: they can just jump right in and start playing.

Quote from: Benoist;748582I think that using ability scores to differentiate characters in play is discrimination and emphasizes that people who are inferior are instantly worthless. I would have thought Kiero with his brilliant track record in social justice, pointing out the blatant carelessness in upholding a gold coinage standard in a fantasy role playing game and how it implicitly supports the idea of slavery, would have noticed. I am shocked. Shocked, I tell you.

All characters should have equal opportunities in the game, regardless of their ability scores. Otherwise, it just perpetuates injustices dumb people have had to suffer from smarter ones, weak ones from stronger ones, careless ones from wiser ones, since the dawn of time. We can't have that.

Thank you. :hatsoff:

I don't know what you're smoking, but I couldn't give a toss about "social justice".

That thread rather aptly demonstrated why I think most fantasy settings are shite compared to using history itself.

Quote from: Maese Mateo;748535Never played it. :(

It's not easy to find old school gamers in Argentina. I'm trying to start a Dungeon Crawl Classics game online, but so far I only have one interested player.

See, if you lived in Uruguay you'd be able to get all the Old School you like, live!

Quote from: Larsdangly;748518Yeah, whenever I make home brewed games I re-imagine clerics as either some form of wizard or some form of fighter, depending on what they like to do in the game; the thing that makes them special is a social role as a leader in a church, and perhaps access to some sort of miraculous powers. I don't really like them as an alternate spell caster class.

The only clerics I like are Rune Priests from RQ. Frankly I don't think you need anything but fighters and MUs.

Quote from: Larsdangly;747736First off, I'm confused by the OP. I just re-read OD&D yesterday and there are definitely morale rules in the first book!


Anyway, I think the biggest thing I would change if I had a time machine and the psychic ability to control the minds of game designers would be the way the 'alternate combat system' works. If you ever play OD&D using Chainmail combat, you will find that fighting men become very powerful as an offensive force in combat within a few levels. By level 4 or 5 they are mowing down common foes and can stand up to powerful beasts. Keep exactly the same character with exactly the same stats, HP and equipment but switch to the 'alternate combat system' (d20 vs. AC, etc.), and your fighter is not significantly better at delivering attacks than he or she would be as a magic user or cleric, and has barely advanced from the start of play. It is kind of shocking when you crunch a few numbers in your head (or better yet play Chainmail!). If I had to guess I would say it wasn't totally intentional - they just wanted something that ran faster and didn't require a copy of Chainmail and this is what they came up with. You could argue that a huge driver of the re-engineering of the game in 3E and 4E was an attempt to finally restore the original dynamic that a moderate-level warrior in Chainmail is actually really tough.

Agree with this. Chainmail based MU, casts fireball. Chainmail based fighter, is a fireball.

Quote from: Kiero;748743I don't know what you're smoking, but I couldn't give a toss about "social justice".

That thread rather aptly demonstrated why I think most fantasy settings are shite compared to using history itself.

Have you tried Harnmaster? It would be trivially easy to use for a purely historical game. Of course dying from infection is a real threat, so it wouldn't meet your "no non-humans, real historical settings are better, and PCs must be super-special" criteria, since it only covers the first two.

Quote from: Kiero;748743That thread rather aptly demonstrated why I think most fantasy settings are shite compared to using history itself.

Because people and cultures in Earth's history didn't fervently believe things and seek to get those values universally imposed/accepted?  

Quote from: Spinal Tarp;748480Plenty of things I would've begged Gary to ommit/change/add but if I had to choose just one it would be to not include Clerics.

When this thread started I couldn't think of a single thing but then this post came up.

Quote from: apparition13;749053Have you tried Harnmaster? It would be trivially easy to use for a purely historical game. Of course dying from infection is a real threat, so it wouldn't meet your "no non-humans, real historical settings are better, and PCs must be super-special" criteria, since it only covers the first two.

I think I played someone's Harn game briefly. But I've already bent B/X/ACKS to historical quite neatly, so I don't need a new system.

Quote from: Ravenswing;749122Because people and cultures in Earth's history didn't fervently believe things and seek to get those values universally imposed/accepted?  

Because history has a depth and relevance fantasy settings can only dream of. When I go away and research stuff for a historical game, I'm adding to my knowledge of real things, not just filling my head with fictional garbage.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;747964I like to believe that if Gary knew that so many non-wargamers would play D&D, he would have incorporated the rules into OD&D and removed references to chainmail, making OD&D a complete standalone game

OD&D also points you at Outdoor Survival for outdoors stuff.

As for things Id want to see changed?

Get rid of halflings.

Quote from: Kiero;749513Because history has a depth and relevance fantasy settings can only dream of.

... of which your players don't give a damn.

This is a common fault of gamers, especially gamebook authors, who love to spell out complex histories, timelines and events going back centuries or millennia.  But very few players care.  With very few exceptions, no one gives a damn that (say) Empress Lynessia III was the last monarch of Vallia to personally lead troops in war, winning the decisive battle of Fourth Council Rock against the Avanari 174 years ago.  What's interesting to some of them -- and by no means all of them -- is that the empires of Vallia and Avanar are traditional enemies and have a turbulent, heavily militarized border, and that the last full-scale war was seventeen years ago.

Or take another common situation: Big Nation conquers Smaller Nation, rules it as a colony for centuries, brings in immigrants with their own way of worship, most of whom settle in a particular province of Smaller Nation, and permanent sectarian friction ensues, especially after the colonial power pulls away.  Lots of scope for plots there.

Now sure, you could call that Northern Ireland, or the Indian subcontinent, and there are hundreds of books and thousands of articles of depth.  But how does that affect play?  You could put that into two or three paragraphs, at most, for all the players will care, most of which discusses those cultural practices one side favors that pisses the other side off and the terrorist groups seeking to push things their way.

Quote from: Ravenswing;749530... of which your players don't give a damn.

So what; they're not the ones running the game. It gives me a lot of neat details I can pull out when relevant to make the setting much richer and more engaging.

Quote from: Ravenswing;749530This is a common fault of gamers, especially gamebook authors, who love to spell out complex histories, timelines and events going back centuries or millennia.  But very few players care.  With very few exceptions, no one gives a damn that (say) Empress Lynessia III was the last monarch of Vallia to personally lead troops in war, winning the decisive battle of Fourth Council Rock against the Avanari 174 years ago.  What's interesting to some of them -- and by no means all of them -- is that the empires of Vallia and Avanar are traditional enemies and have a turbulent, heavily militarized border, and that the last full-scale war was seventeen years ago.

Or take another common situation: Big Nation conquers Smaller Nation, rules it as a colony for centuries, brings in immigrants with their own way of worship, most of whom settle in a particular province of Smaller Nation, and permanent sectarian friction ensues, especially after the colonial power pulls away.  Lots of scope for plots there.

Now sure, you could call that Northern Ireland, or the Indian subcontinent, and there are hundreds of books and thousands of articles of depth.  But how does that affect play?  You could put that into two or three paragraphs, at most, for all the players will care, most of which discusses those cultural practices one side favors that pisses the other side off and the terrorist groups seeking to push things their way.

You've just illustrated the same issue you edited out of my quote, it's fictional bollocks. I care much less about that than I do enriching my knowledge of things that actually happened and have bearing on the real world.

(shrugs)  What I left out of your quote was the part having nothing to do with gaming.  If what you're saying is that you prefer to stick with real history because you only have so much headspace, and because your real interest is in becoming a better and more informed historian?  Fair enough, those are worthwhile goals.  They just don't have jack to do with gaming, and it's silly to pretend that they do.  It's all about your amour propre.

Quote from: RPGPundit;748978See, if you lived in Uruguay you'd be able to get all the Old School you like, live!

I'll take that as an invitation to contact you if I visit Uruguay on my vacations.:D

Quote from: Kiero;749513Because history has a depth and relevance fantasy settings can only dream of. When I go away and research stuff for a historical game, I'm adding to my knowledge of real things, not just filling my head with fictional garbage.

???
History: Fiction or Science?
Recorded history is a finely-woven magic fabric of intricate lies about events predating the sixteenth century. There is not a single piece of evidence that can be reliably and independently traced back earlier than the eleventh century. This book details events that are substantiated by hard facts and logic, and validated by new astronomical research and statistical analysis of ancient sources

http://www.amazon.com/History-Fiction-Science-Chronology-No/dp/2913621058 (http://www.amazon.com/History-Fiction-Science-Chronology-No/dp/2913621058)

Under the Black Flag
For this rousing, revisionist history, the former head of exhibitions at England's National Maritime Museum has combed original documents and records to produce a most authoritative and definitive account of piracy's "Golden Age." As he explodes many accepted myths (i.e. "walking the plank" is pure fiction), Cordingly replaces them with a truth that is more complex and often bloodier. 16 pp. of photos. Maps.

Under the Black Flag (http://www.amazon.com/Under-Black-Flag-Romance-Reality/dp/081297722X)


Most things, are in fact fiction, right up until the time someone makes it a history. So history is fiction, redefined. For example...

The United States didn't exist, at least, not until the colonies successfully rebelled against the crown.

At one time the United Kingdom didn't exist. First it was a loose collection of barbarian tribes, Then it was a Roman Province, Then it was a divided kingdom, one part Celtic-Roman, the other part Saxon. A kingdom that was relentlessly invaded and raided by Vikings, then invaded again by Normans, kinfolk to those original conquered Celtic-Romans remaining in Briton, who were now also part Saxon as well.

When the last King, Henry VIII, of the original English/Celtic Bloodline, The Tudor Kings, died out, they in turn were replaced by the Stuarts, a line Saxon/Celtic Kings from Norther Briton... who were in turn replaced by fullblood Saxons... in 1701 King George I succeeded the last of the Stuart lineage, Queen Anne. King George I was a Saxon from Hanover, Germany.

Still the United Kingdom, was not united. It wouldn't be until King George III came to power in 1760 that the United Kingdom would be considered United, although multiple rebellions broke out in both Scotland, and Ireland, and a lasting peace was not achieved until, 2005.

Sadly although the peace lasted, the United Kingdom did not. They have bent the knee as a charter member of the European Union in 2009, and are no longer an Independent nation.

European Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union)

Studying history is to study fiction. It's a study of fiction sponsored by the men with the most, or best, swords and guns, ...but not necessarily the men who value truth, although from time-to-time, they are indeed one and the same.

You've been reading the Daily Mail too much.

Quote from: GameDaddy;749935???
History: Fiction or Science?
Recorded history is a finely-woven magic fabric of intricate lies about events predating the sixteenth century. There is not a single piece of evidence that can be reliably and independently traced back earlier than the eleventh century. This book details events that are substantiated by hard facts and logic, and validated by new astronomical research and statistical analysis of ancient sources

http://www.amazon.com/History-Fiction-Science-Chronology-No/dp/2913621058 (http://www.amazon.com/History-Fiction-Science-Chronology-No/dp/2913621058)

We are getting way off topic here but this book is considered seriously fringe by historians.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;749940We are getting way off topic here but this book is considered seriously fringe by historians.

Probably not the best example... just one of the first that I was able to find. I've done research and investigations myself that examines evidence that is far older than the eleventh century CE, and found both reliable, and repeatable results... so some of the claims of the book are off, right from the start.

The others... the fictions that became history as part of the pirate lore ...and the fictional United States that became real, and the fiction of a United Kingdom, that was, in fact, only united for a total of fours years during the entire last two Millennia...

How is that off-topic?

Quote from: GameDaddy;749942How is that off-topic?

I dont see what it has to do directly with RPGs or OD&D. It feels like a politcal/social science/psuedo-history discussion to me.

As for OD&D, I can't say I really have any 'regrets', I just don't really play it.  I vastly prefer B/X or the RC, or AD&D 1e.

Quote from: RPGPundit;750040As for OD&D, I can't say I really have any 'regrets', I just don't really play it.  I vastly prefer B/X or the RC, or AD&D 1e.

I'm mostly with you; the only caveat I would add is that the speed and power level of combat when you use Chainmail is massively different and I think better than standard D&D. And, while virtually no one plays OD&D using Chainmail combat, it is 'supported', at least in the first set. Beyond that, OD&D is a lot like disassembling the 1eAD&D player's handbook and monster manual and gluing them back together in random order to make small digest sized books.

Quote from: Maese Mateo;749929I'll take that as an invitation to contact you if I visit Uruguay on my vacations.:D

Sure, if you're up for some old-school.