Od&d

[SirKazum]

Hello there all. I'm new to this place, as you can well see, though I've been lurking in the darkness for a while (and of course, being also a long-time OOTS reader and D&D veteran from the 2E days).

So, more to the point - recently I've been taking an interest in going back to the roots of D&D, and have been looking up on Chainmail and OD&D. By OD&D I mean the actually very first edition from back in 1974. I've mentioned it in other places, and it seems likely that you might mistake a more recent version for the original D&D. If it looks like the designers paid ther little brothers in candy to draw the illustrations, and if all weapons deal 1d6 damage, then it's OD&D, otherwise it's later than that ;)

So, who here has any experience with Chainmail (the original game, not the post-3E re-launch) and/or OD&D? Regardless of whether you played it when it came out, or somehow dug it up recently (which is my case). What are your experiences with it? I've been considering trying it out (just the basic three OD&D books, no supplements, which actually makes it a VERY different game from all later editions) just for fun. Any advice? And more importantly, know of anyone out there who does this already?

Thanks, and looking forward to participating in here.

[arguskos]

Hello there all. I'm new to this place, as you can well see, though I've been lurking in the darkness for a while (and of course, being also a long-time OOTS reader and D&D veteran from the 2E days).

So, more to the point - recently I've been taking an interest in going back to the roots of D&D, and have been looking up on Chainmail and OD&D. By OD&D I mean the actually very first edition from back in 1974. I've mentioned it in other places, and it seems likely that you might mistake a more recent version for the original D&D. If it looks like the designers paid ther little brothers in candy to draw the illustrations, and if all weapons deal 1d6 damage, then it's OD&D, otherwise it's later than that ;)

So, who here has any experience with Chainmail (the original game, not the post-3E re-launch) and/or OD&D? Regardless of whether you played it when it came out, or somehow dug it up recently (which is my case). What are your experiences with it? I've been considering trying it out (just the basic three OD&D books, no supplements, which actually makes it a VERY different game from all later editions) just for fun. Any advice? And more importantly, know of anyone out there who does this already?

Thanks, and looking forward to participating in here.

Hah! I've got 4 complete sets of the White Box of OD&D, and it's some fun stuff. Really lethal though, but damned fun. Word of warning, in case you've never played it before: you will have to make up nearly everything. Now, this isn't really a bad thing, but it does require a bit more mental agility than you may be used to.

Enjoy it! I know I sure do.

[hamishspence]

I've got parts of it- but a later edition of the non-advanced D&D game. Basic, Expert, Master (missing Companion and Immortals)

I've only (so far) played Basic though.

[Tallis]

I've played a later version (red box). I don't know exactly how it compares to the first set of rules, but I found it to be a lot of fun. It is quite a bit deadlier with a lot less options. The companion set did have an older version of prestige classes as well as the oldest version of the monk that I'm aware of.

[hamishspence]

I remember them in the Master set (Mystics)

[SirKazum]

I'm not discounting later versions, of course. I'm just intrigued by the first D&D that came out because of how completely bare it is (hence intending to use no supplements). So yeah, I'm aware that I'll have to make most stuff up, and that the number of options available is staggeringly low - after all, players have a grand total of six possible combinations, race and class included.

Yeah it does seem lethal, especially given how monsters are just thrown in there with no concepts such as CR (though of course the DM could adjudicate that on his own), and given how little resources such as spells and magic items are available. It might be fun to go back to the days when 1st-level wizards had a grand total of ONE spell to cast per day

[Tallis]

I remember them in the Master set (Mystics)

Oops, I think you're right, Mystics(monks) were from the Master's Set DM's Guide.

[shadzar]

I have never played with the expansion to Chainmail before. The first I played was blue or red books.

Never owned a copy of chainmail so didn't really bother trying to play it.

[RebelRogue]

Oops, I think you're right, Mystics(monks) were from the Master's Set DM's Guide.

Indeed.

Companion had the Paladins, Knights, Avengers (all fighter options according to alignment), Druids (for neutral clerics), Magist and guildmasters (for magic-users and thieves respectively, although there was no mechanical benefits to those except for payment, I think). Good times!

[Matthew]

I highly recommend this message board for discussion of Original Dungeons & Dragons: OD&D74. Giant in the Playground is great for rapid discussion of contemporary rule sets, but significant investigation of pre 2000 rules tends to fade rapidly into the ether.

[arguskos]

I highly recommend this message board for discussion of Original Dungeons & Dragons: OD&D74. Giant in the Playground is great for rapid discussion of contemporary rule sets, but significant investigation of pre 2000 rules tends to fade rapidly into the ether.

I think that's because many of the older players don't frequent these boards. nagora is gone, you don't post much, and there really aren't that many left who know enough to talk about OD&D on any kind of real level.

It's a shame too. I'd love to learn more about it, but my group isn't interested. Time to go lurk on some forums!

[mistformsquirrl]

I started in 3rd (though I got a sort of vague idea of how to use the AD&D rules via Baldur's gate and one very very short attempt at a campaign); but I've always been curious about the older editions as well.

*bookmarks the OD&D74 page*

[SirKazum]

I'll be bookmarking the OD&D74 forum as well. Thanks for the link!

[Thane of Fife]

RPG.net is also a decent place to talk about OD&D (head into the D20/D&D subforums).

Intriguingly, their demographics appear largely opposite those here - lots of 4e, BECM, and OD&D fans, and very few who are interested in 3.x or AD&D.

Old Geezer in particular could be worth listening to, as he was apparently one of the original players, and occasionally drops some intriguing insights.

[ghost_warlock]

I started playing with the black box (the one where the DM screen was stuffed with learning-to-play reference cards) and then moved onward to the Rules Cyclopedia. Sounds like it was a lot more...adorned than the original Original D&D.

Funny thing, just yesterday an old gaming buddy of mine commented on my Facebook wall about how he'd recently cracked open his ancient copy of the Rules Cyclopedia. He said it had been "a simpler time." He hasn't played, to my knowledge, since we were in high school - carried his Cyclopedia around for apparently sentimental reasons, through various moves across the country, for over a decade without so much as creating a single character.

[ken-do-nim]

Good to see the interest in the earlier games popping up. I frequent the OD&D board as well as Dragonsfoot (many of the posters overlap), so I hope to see some of you around!

The little brown books are such a trip. I know the original poster didn't want to look at supplements, but Eldritch Wizardry is just *so* cool; I can't really imagine playing OD&D without all those nasty demons and cursed artifacts.

Here's everything you might want for an OD&D campaign: 3 original books, 4 supplements, Best of Dragon I, Ready Ref Sheets. You don't actually need Chainmail, but it's nice to have.

And here's some of the adventures written for OD&D: Tegel Manor, Verbosh, Caverns of Thracia, Thieves of Fortress Badabaskor, Citadel of Fire. Most if not all of these adventures expect the Greyhawk supplement to be used. All of these adventures are classics (the latter 3 having been revised for 3.5).

[Ninetail]

So, who here has any experience with Chainmail (the original game, not the post-3E re-launch) and/or OD&D? Regardless of whether you played it when it came out, or somehow dug it up recently (which is my case). What are your experiences with it? I've been considering trying it out (just the basic three OD&D books, no supplements, which actually makes it a VERY different game from all later editions) just for fun. Any advice? And more importantly, know of anyone out there who does this already?

I've played it.

My advice would be to use the later revisions of the game -- the Basic, etc. sets or the Rules Compendium (the latter being my preferred edition). It's just much more cohesive and interesting. The original owes a lot more to its wargame roots.

As an experiment, I suppose it'd be interesting. But as a game, I found it a bit lacking.

[RebelRogue]

I started playing with the black box (the one where the DM screen was stuffed with learning-to-play reference cards) and then moved onward to the Rules Cyclopedia. Sounds like it was a lot more...adorned than the original Original D&D.

Rules Cyclopedia is nothing but the collection of rules from Basic through Expert sets. It is not OD&D, but there's nothing added relative to previously released material.

I still wish I got myself one of those when they were available (I had all the sets so I didn't bother).

[bosssmiley]

What are your experiences with it? I've been considering trying it out (just the basic three OD&D books, no supplements, which actually makes it a VERY different game from all later editions) just for fun. Any advice? And more importantly, know of anyone out there who does this already?

No personal XP with OD&D (too hardcore for me), but I know guys out there who still play the old game.

Grognardia and Philotomy are two names that come up a lot, and Matthew's already linked you to the OD&D discussion board (nice guys).

Jason at the Wasted Lands blog has recently done a booklet on his experiences of using Chainmail with OD&D. It's eye-opening and VG indeed.

[SirKazum]

Ken-do-nim: I've been looking at the supplements as well, of course. And realized (as "experts" in the field such as Philotomy have pointed out) that, with all supplements, OD&D is actually very similar to 1E AD&D. Not that there's anything inherently wrong with that - but, the thing is, the original "white box" used without any supplements is a completely different game from any D&D edition that came up later. For example: no thief class, all weapons deal the same damage, most ability score bonuses don't exist (i.e. a fighter with Str 3 deals the same damage as one with Str 18), hit-dice progression is not linear, and so on. Those should probably make for a gaming experience that's quite different to what I'm used to with further editions, which is what I'd like to try.

Ninetail - yes, at first, it's meant to be largely an experiment. But, as I said above, it sounds like a different experience from other editions, so who knows, I might actually want to stick to it for simpler or grittier games. But if I want a campaign that provides greater options and uses more consistent rules, I'll probably stick to 3.x, since I'm much more familiar with it.

bosssmiley (hey how's Prez doing?) - I've read Philotomy's page, and it's influenced me to give the un-supplemented OD&D a try (as per my reasoning to Ken-do-nim above). Heard some about Grognardia, but not seen it yet, will check it out too. Thanks!

Everyone - What about Chainmail? I've been curious about that one too. Is it actually any good/fun as far as wargames are concerned? And I understand it's not really required to play OD&D, but it sure helps clarify a few things. Especially racial abilities and some combat maneuvers. And I guess using it as a reference would add to that "alien" feel I said (about not using the supplements), since as a game it's got nothing to do with D&D at all, other than the fantasy thematics and the name of a few spells that were inherited from it. (Finally, I know why 2E called 1st-level illusion "Phantasmal Force"!)

[ken-do-nim]

Ken-do-nim: I've been looking at the supplements as well, of course. And realized (as "experts" in the field such as Philotomy have pointed out) that, with all supplements, OD&D is actually very similar to 1E AD&D. Not that there's anything inherently wrong with that - but, the thing is, the original "white box" used without any supplements is a completely different game from any D&D edition that came up later. For example: no thief class, all weapons deal the same damage, most ability score bonuses don't exist (i.e. a fighter with Str 3 deals the same damage as one with Str 18), hit-dice progression is not linear, and so on. Those should probably make for a gaming experience that's quite different to what I'm used to with further editions, which is what I'd like to try.

Philotomy actually changed his mind about that in a more recent post on Dragonsfoot. The biggest misconception of OD&D - by far - is that having a thief (a) changes how the game plays (b) limits the other classes. One of the great virtues of OD&D is that there aren't find and search rolls, everything must be done by description. "I shine my lantern directly into the keyhole. Do I see anything glint?" People always complain that having a thief class takes away from this, and that whereas with just the 3 OD&D books everyone could search, now it becomes the thief's job. Nothing could be further from the truth, because the OD&D thief does not have a find traps skill. Only a remove traps skill. Second, thieves have special abilities to move silently, not simply quietly, to hide in shadows, not just behind cover, to climb sheer surfaces, not just walls with readily available handholds. None of these are abilities that the other classes had. You could argue about the thief open locks ability taking away something you used to let the other classes do, but if you did allow it, you as a DM had no guidelines for it.

But also keep in mind you can use parts of Eldritch Wizardry without using the Greyhawk supplement, which is the one that adds more AD&D-isms.

[SirKazum]

Well yes. At least one thing that caught my eye and that I might use in a hypothetical "LBB-only" campaign are the artifacts.