State of the OSR: so, what did I miss?

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
Yes, but it is the only time it's been applied as an official model for AD&D, and is called out as "Method I," implying that it's the default. In practice, "Method V" (4d6k3) became the baseline.
AD&D1's PHB tell you that the DM will inform you of the method they want you to use to roll up a character, and that you'll probablu need a couple of 15+ stats to be viable. The DMG gives 4d6, drop low, as 'Method I, and 3d6 in order as Method III, which I had not recalled - we usually used the 'roll 6 sets, take the one you hate least' option.

As for the AD&D2 list, I'm pretty sure they ranked them in order according to which gave the best average stats and from least to most choice. The unfortunate part is where they warn DMs of power inflation when discussing 4d6, drop low, when it's more usually the result of players rolling their stats out of the DM's direct oversight.

EDIT: I'm going off the text of the 1995 re-release of AD&D2, because that's what I have to hand. The earlier printings may have had different passages, as 2e changed stuff here and there with reprintings, and those changes were poorly, if ever documented.
 
Back in the day and currently I considered level to be a mark of experience and that every character has levels. One alternative is that those with character classes are special and those with levels are special heroes.

Partially inspired by the level titles of AD&D. I considered overall experience in groups of three levels in order to figure out whether a character was an apprentice, journeyman, master, or grandmaster. Over time it evolved into the below.

Levels 1 to 2 are considered to be trained apprentices. Characters are nominally capable of doing the job of their class or profession, but still have more to learn before being considered a veteran or fully trained.

Level 3 is where characters are considered professionals within their class or profession. In a guild, this is the point where a character becomes a journeyman and is allowed to take employment with any master willing to hire them. Burglars will now be respected enough to run their own heists. Clerics become full priests of their religion, allowed to officiate at services and ceremonies. Fighters receive their first minor command. Finally, Magic-Users are considered fully trained and ready to make their own way in the world.

Level 6 is where characters are considered to have mastered their profession and ready to assume various leadership roles. In guilds, the character would be considered a master of their profession. Burglars gain control over the jobs and heists done in a neighborhood. A Cleric becomes eligible to be a bishop, responsible for the flock of a small region or city. Fighters start to independently command troops as a captain. Finally, Magic-Users start to take on apprentices to train and to assist them in their expanding array of research.

Level 9 is where the character reaches the pinnacle of their profession and occupies the highest leadership positions. In guilds, the character becomes a grandmaster, either leading the guild or with a place on the council, setting policy for the guild. Clerics become High Priests or Archbishops in charge of their religion’s hierarchy for a region or realm. A Fighter would be promoted to general or granted lands to rule as the lord or lady of the land. Finally, a Magic-User would be known as a full wizard and widely respected for their knowledge and skill. They would attract many apprentices and fellow Magic-Users to learn and assist the wizard in their research.

At level 12, the character is considered a paragon of their profession, somebody whose skill and exploits are worthy of being used as an example for others to follow. In modern times, these characters would win the Nobel Prize or be Olympic-caliber athletes.

At level 16, the character becomes more than a paragon and moves into legendary status. Their deeds are famous through the continent or even the world. Consider these on par with our own world’s Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Sun Tzu, Plato, or Aristotle.

This also reflects that for the most part when my campaigns end. Usually around 12th level or so.
So basically the Gangbusters spread? :grin:
 
I wasn't aware of Gangbuster's take on levels.
It's really very close to what you've described and with similarly small numbers of higher-level characters assumed in the setting, if only unofficially.

I think that (IIRC), levels over 10th are strictly theoretically, and the levels they give for (mythologized) historic characters stop at 10th. ( Charlie "Lucky" Luciano, for example, for gangsters). By comparison, Dustbowl bank robbers Bonnie and Clyde are each about 2nd level, with Dillinger about 4th or 5th. For cops, Elliot Ness is given as 10th but I assume that's a TV show related upgrade. Most of his Untouchables are rated around 4th.

GB is a bit of a platypus in design though.
 
Back in the day, I used to have the stat mods for AD&D nearly memorized. Now, it feels like unnecessary complexity that didn't really add anything. I'm ok with either Basic's mods or 3e-5e mods - I want simple and uniform across abilities.
I like the ability score value itself to be the "mod" as a more elegant rules approach, like some JG stuff where you rolled a d20 or 3d6 against an ability score to do certain things. Still have fond memories of OD&D when your ability mod was simply an xp bonus.
 
I haven’t found 5e to be completely broken - though there are some parts I take issue with - but it was nice realizing it wasn’t as “perfectly balanced” as 3e and 4e claimed to be.
Ahhh but are the rules "clear and complete" as written? :smile:
 
I like the way you guys think but Bunny's dissatisfaction with B/X goes down to the very bones of the system.
  • Characters are fragile
  • Glacially slow advancement
  • Only option for Fighters in combat is "I hit it with my weapon" or playing mother may I with the DM
  • Magic Users are walking, talking single charge magic items
Edit: I think it's a generational thing. She's 20 years younger than me. 5e took some really good lessons from video game development that appeal to younger people.
Heh, it's a bit funny to think that the "Mother May I ?" aspect of RPG play was considered an improvement over other sorts of gaming at one point in time, at least for me and my pals (especially as kids).

Not that arguments were never involved. It was just cool to be able to "color outside the lines " of strict game rules.
 
Regarding domain play and mass combat in higher-level BECMI/RC, it was entirely possible to avoid that if a group wanted to. There were character options that allowed for name-level and higher characters to not be rooted to a certain location (for example, fighters had the paladin/knight/avenger options). It really depended on what direction the group wanted to go.

Also, the Companion and Master modules mostly avoided domains, from what I remember, though there were a few where it was the focus (CM1 for sure, and one or two others I can't remember).
 
Regarding domain play and mass combat in higher-level BECMI/RC, it was entirely possible to avoid that if a group wanted to.
:hehe:

So, what you're saying is that it was possible to avoid the thing almost no one ever ended up doing anyway?

I'm kidding, but to me that's a funny way of looking at it.

Admittedly though, I am/was probably more inclined to want the sort of Blackmoor game someone described Arneson attempting to run upthread ( domain play is the main focus, dungeon-crawling and similar the colorful side-show) that then spiraled out of control than almost anyone else I ever played RPGs with.
 
I dislike the uneven progression so I went with. But agree the top modifier should be capped at +3 not +4. Works out better in the long run I found in various campaigns.



ScoreModifier
3, 4, 5​
-2​
6, 7, 8​
-1​
9, 10, 11​
+0​
12, 13, 14​
+1​
15, 16, 17​
+2​
18, 19, 20​
+3​
21, 22, 23​
+4​
I’ve considered that but then you have an aesthetically unappealing asymmetry probability-wise.

One thought I’ve had is
ScoreModifier
1-2-4
3-4-3
5-6-2
7-8-1
9-12+0
13-14+1
15-16+2
17-18+3
19-20+4

Just widening the dead zone compared to 3e. It has the issue that 18s aren’t as special anymore, but I could live with that.
 
:hehe:

So, what you're saying is that it was possible to avoid the thing almost no one ever ended up doing anyway?

I'm kidding, but to me that's a funny way of looking at it.

What I'm saying is that avoiding it is still playing the game as written, because it was built to have options once the characters reached higher levels. There seems to be a misconception out there that characters were required to become lords, have wizard's towers, etc once they hit name level, and that's not the case.
 
What I'm saying is that avoiding it is still playing the game as written, because it was built to have options once the characters reached higher levels. There seems to be a misconception out there that characters were required to become lords, have wizard's towers, etc once they hit name level, and that's not the case.
Is that really a common misconception? I don't follow all of the OSR places, so I'd be really amused if that was a now-common Revival misimpression of what generally happened in practice.

Basically, I'd be amused if that thing I frustratingly never got to do back in the day was assumed to be incredibly commonplace (or even required) by people coming to old timey-D&D from the present for the first time.
 
AD&D1's PHB tell you that the DM will inform you of the method they want you to use to roll up a character, and that you'll probablu need a couple of 15+ stats to be viable. The DMG gives 4d6, drop low, as 'Method I, and 3d6 in order as Method III, which I had not recalled - we usually used the 'roll 6 sets, take the one you hate least' option.

EDIT: I'm going off the text of the 1995 re-release of AD&D2, because that's what I have to hand. The earlier printings may have had different passages, as 2e changed stuff here and there with reprintings, and those changes were poorly, if ever documented.

Curious. I just checked my Collector's Edition reprint of the 1995 DMG, and it matched the 1989 DMG--Method I is 3d6 in order, Method III is 3d6 arrange as desired, and Method V is 4d6, drop lowest, arrange as desired. There must have been further shifting going on. Whether or not it was an option or an intended default, the fact does remain that 'straight 3d6' has only been paired with the Advanced strain of the rules in 2nd Edition--1E doesn't include it in the DMG as an option, IIRC, and 3E onward has gone with 4d6k3, point-buy, and/or arrays.
 
Curious. I just checked my Collector's Edition reprint of the 1995 DMG, and it matched the 1989 DMG--Method I is 3d6 in order, Method III is 3d6 arrange as desired, and Method V is 4d6, drop lowest, arrange as desired. There must have been further shifting going on. Whether or not it was an option or an intended default, the fact does remain that 'straight 3d6' has only been paired with the Advanced strain of the rules in 2nd Edition--1E doesn't include it in the DMG as an option, IIRC, and 3E onward has gone with 4d6k3, point-buy, and/or arrays.
The 1E DMG specifically advises AGAINST using 3d6 in order:
While it is possible to generate some fairly playable characters by rolling 3d6, there is often an extended period of attempts at finding a suitable one due to quirks of the dice. Furthermore, these rather marginal characters tend to have short life expectancy - which tends to discourage new players, as does having to make do with some character of a race and/or class which he or she really can't or won't identify with. Character generation, then, is a serious matter, and it is recommended that the following systems be used.
 
:hehe:

So, what you're saying is that it was possible to avoid the thing almost no one ever ended up doing anyway?
Yes and the popular alternative back in the day was to adventure on the outer planes, the underearth/underdark and other fantastic locations with NPCs and monsters far more tough than the usual for the setting. Rather than building a stronghold
 
I use 3d6 six times and arrange accordingly for my Majestic Fantasy RPG. Players can reroll a new set of six as often they like and often stop after three or four rerolls.

If I was to use AD&D 1e it would be 4d6 drop the lowest, do this seven times, drop the lower and then arrange accordingly.

The difference is that having a high score is a lot more important in AD&D 1e than it is for OD&D. Even with my ability system and use of a maximum +3 bonus, having a character with all 10s is still viable. Because the monster stats are more or less taken direct from OD&D 3 LBBs. With that the bonuses were even lower and the difference between having all 18s for your score compared to having all 10s was minimal. This is not the case for AD&D. Something I learned quickly back in the day when it was my main system from 1979 to 1985.

Hence the 4d6 system I used above.
 
I’ve considered that but then you have an aesthetically unappealing asymmetry probability-wise.

I get it but here is the thing, 10 is considered average in D&D not 10.5. I am aware that centerpoint of a 3d6 bell curve is between 10 and 11. Also your solution still has a progression of +1 per 2 points after 12. I tried your method and it still skewed numbers too much by the end of the campaign. Almost but not as bad as the d20 progression. So while my methods gives slightly higher odds to have a positive bonus, going by three instead of two produces a better result by the end of the campaign.

What happens by the end of the campaign? Characters figure out ways of improving their stats through magic items, wishes, and other mechanics. It is a lot slower progression over time than 5e but it still happens with the classic editions as the character gains access to magic items and high level spells.
 
Yes and the popular alternative back in the day was to adventure on the outer planes, the underearth/underdark and other fantastic locations with NPCs and monsters far more tough than the usual for the setting. Rather than building a stronghold
Not building armies and strongholds is part of what makes XPs for gold a weird artifact, and makes creating other money-sinks or different XP/advancement schemes a near necessity.

Not that I really blame anyone for not going the minor warlord route. It's a massive tonal shift in late-game direction, made even more so when the campaign isn't being played in some sort of large player-pool environment like a club with dozens of players.

Thrown in there is also, at least for me as someone not coming from a wargame background as a kid, the switch from co-operative play with the group to a competitive form of play amongst the group. One of the endearing qualities of RPGs for me then and now is that they're one of the few games where you don't compete with your friends during play (generally).

OTOH, few other players being interested in a bit of warlordism was also what encouraged me to look at both other sorts of RPGs from D&D and, in parallel, start looking at miniatures wargames seperate from RPGs.
 
Not building armies and strongholds is part of what makes XPs for gold a weird artifact, and makes creating other money-sinks or different XP/advancement schemes a near necessity.

I realized that early on when I running AD&D 1e back in the day. I still use a variant of the below for my Majestic Fantasy RPG.


I typed this circa 1986.

1659037200488.png
 
AD&D1's PHB tell you that the DM will inform you of the method they want you to use to roll up a character, and that you'll probablu need a couple of 15+ stats to be viable. The DMG gives 4d6, drop low, as 'Method I, and 3d6 in order as Method III, which I had not recalled - we usually used the 'roll 6 sets, take the one you hate least' option.

As for the AD&D2 list, I'm pretty sure they ranked them in order according to which gave the best average stats and from least to most choice. The unfortunate part is where they warn DMs of power inflation when discussing 4d6, drop low, when it's more usually the result of players rolling their stats out of the DM's direct oversight.

EDIT: I'm going off the text of the 1995 re-release of AD&D2, because that's what I have to hand. The earlier printings may have had different passages, as 2e changed stuff here and there with reprintings, and those changes were poorly, if ever documented.

I vacillated on favorite attribute rolling method for AD&D2e (the third rpg I played and second I GMed) for a long while, but I've settled on my favorite being method II, roll 3d6 twice for each attribute and pick the one you want. This leads to generally somewhat better stats, although not insanely so, especially mitigating most outright terrible rolls, but little min-maxing as the scores can't be moved around from stat to stat. So you'll end up with more varied characters usually.
 
Not building armies and strongholds is part of what makes XPs for gold a weird artifact, and makes creating other money-sinks or different XP/advancement schemes a near necessity.

Not that I really blame anyone for not going the minor warlord route. It's a massive tonal shift in late-game direction, made even more so when the campaign isn't being played in some sort of large player-pool environment like a club with dozens of players.

Thrown in there is also, at least for me as someone not coming from a wargame background as a kid, the switch from co-operative play with the group to a competitive form of play amongst the group. One of the endearing qualities of RPGs for me then and now is that they're one of the few games where you don't compete with your friends during play (generally).

OTOH, few other players being interested in a bit of warlordism was also what encouraged me to look at both other sorts of RPGs from D&D and, in parallel, start looking at miniatures wargames seperate from RPGs.
Not just that, there's a lot of competition for that role that didn't exist back then.

You still have your epic scale wargame domain management run by the likes of AGEMA. That kind of game predates D&D but the addition of PBEM to PBM has given it a new lease of life.

You now have other RPGs that take that as their focus, Reign being the most obvious but you find elements of it as early as Pendragon.

And the big rival that wasn't much of a factor back then is video games. I suspect Crusader Kings alone siphons off a lot of people looking for that playstyle.

On this, I think D&D is largely a victim of history. There's many things it's really good at, but in 2022 I can't really see any good reason I'd use it for a domain management game apart from nostalgia. It's just been outpaced by its descendents.
 
I use 3d6 six times and arrange accordingly for my Majestic Fantasy RPG. Players can reroll a new set of six as often they like and often stop after three or four rerolls.

If I was to use AD&D 1e it would be 4d6 drop the lowest, do this seven times, drop the lower and then arrange accordingly.

The difference is that having a high score is a lot more important in AD&D 1e than it is for OD&D. Even with my ability system and use of a maximum +3 bonus, having a character with all 10s is still viable. Because the monster stats are more or less taken direct from OD&D 3 LBBs. With that the bonuses were even lower and the difference between having all 18s for your score compared to having all 10s was minimal. This is not the case for AD&D. Something I learned quickly back in the day when it was my main system from 1979 to 1985.

Hence the 4d6 system I used above.
Once upon a time in an AD&D2 game I rolled a 4d6k3 character with no stat higher than a 13 (but they had two of them). I made them a fighter, because what the heck - they'll die fast in the front lines, right? Put one 13 in Strength and the other into Int. Well, I rolled 10HP at first level, another '10' for second, and then another '10' for third. At 4th level the string broke - he got a '9'. Crap stats, but the roll that really counts for a fighter was just amazing. With no extra hit or damage bonuses he was basically a tank in the MMORPG sense - tough but poor damage output.
 
Once upon a time in an AD&D2 game I rolled a 4d6k3 character with no stat higher than a 13 (but they had two of them). I made them a fighter, because what the heck - they'll die fast in the front lines, right? Put one 13 in Strength and the other into Int. Well, I rolled 10HP at first level, another '10' for second, and then another '10' for third. At 4th level the string broke - he got a '9'. Crap stats, but the roll that really counts for a fighter was just amazing. With no extra hit or damage bonuses he was basically a tank in the MMORPG sense - tough but poor damage output.
In AD&D, there isn't that much difference between 13 strength and 17 strength, so it works out.

For a while, we used a semi-random chargen method - roll 8d6k3 for a chosen ability, 7d6k3 for next, down to 3d6 for the last. You didn't automatically have your highest stat in your chosen ability. Our face put 3d6 in charisma and got 16. This other guy had a fighter with like 14 strength but 18 con and rolled a 10 and a 9 for his first two hit dice. He'd just waltz into trouble. Meanwhile, I had a MU with below average hp and was paranoid of everything.

I think the 8d6 was a bit extreme but I have used 2 5d6, 2 4d6, 2 3d6.
 
In AD&D, there isn't that much difference between 13 strength and 17 strength, so it works out.

For a while, we used a semi-random chargen method - roll 8d6k3 for a chosen ability, 7d6k3 for next, down to 3d6 for the last. You didn't automatically have your highest stat in your chosen ability. Our face put 3d6 in charisma and got 16. This other guy had a fighter with like 14 strength but 18 con and rolled a 10 and a 9 for his first two hit dice. He'd just waltz into trouble. Meanwhile, I had a MU with below average hp and was paranoid of everything.

I think the 8d6 was a bit extreme but I have used 2 5d6, 2 4d6, 2 3d6.
That’s effectively 1E’s Method V from Unearthed Arcana, only there the top stat was 9d6k3 (because UA also added Comeliness as a 7th stat) and the order of the rolls was based on class, not player choice. Your version was better than the official one.
 
Not building armies and strongholds is part of what makes XPs for gold a weird artifact, and makes creating other money-sinks or different XP/advancement schemes a near necessity.
This a good resource for giving players things to spend gold on.
51612170._UY2030_SS2030_.jpg
 
In AD&D, there isn't that much difference between 13 strength and 17 strength, so it works out.
+1 Hit, +1 damage in a game where you're otherwise doing 1d8 damage and probably hitting on a 14+ averages out at quite a bit more damage - about 40% more. Once people start getting magic weapons the advantage drops away a bit, but at the lower levels it's pretty huge, but possibly obscured by the way 1 hit dice creatures will either get one-shotted or need a second hit, of which most damage will usually be overkill.
 
I guess you could just go ahead and use the rules from the Rules Cyclopedia to fill-in whatever gaps you have. Or there's Dark Dungeons, a BECMI clone. ACKS has some fairly robust domain-level play (but nothing covering the "M" or the "I" that you might want).

I like the domain rules on BECMI and RC (also a fan of their mass combat rules), not sure what the ACKS rules do that isn't done more concisely in the RC.
 
I get not everyone liking 3d6 in order. My problem is that most people swap in 4d6 and drop the lowest. While I understand people wanting to have a high stat in their prime requisite, I hate a system that is designed to make people above average in every stat. It takes away from being the strongest one in the group when even wizards have an average Strength of 13.
I like taking a barebones array, something like PF's "low fantasy" (14/13/12/11/10/9) that players can assign as they want... and then roll 3d6 in order against each score.
 
The 1E DMG specifically advises AGAINST using 3d6 in order:
I think the confusion comes from the way Method III is written.

1659091438860.png

If you read it carefully I'm pretty sure it's saying that you roll 3d6 six times just for Strength, choose the highest, and then repeat the process for each of the other ability scores.

Otherwise it makes no sense as Gygax does indeed tell you not to roll 3d6 in order and assign.

Honestly, the methods in the DMG and Unearthed Arcana seem to increasingly expect such generally high scores that if I were to run 1e again for some reason I'd just drop the convoluted nonsense of all the rolling methods and just tell the players they can pick their own ability scores.
 
I think the confusion comes from the way Method III is written.

View attachment 48164

If you read it carefully I'm pretty sure it's saying that you roll 3d6 six times just for Strength, choose the highest, and then repeat the process for each of the other ability scores.

Otherwise it makes no sense as Gygax does indeed tell you not to roll 3d6 in order and assign.
Yup, that's what it says on the tin. 6 rolls for each ability, in order, keep the highest result for each.
 
Honestly, the methods in the DMG and Unearthed Arcana seem to increasingly expect such generally high scores that if I were to run 1e again for some reason I'd just drop the convoluted nonsense of all the rolling methods and just tell the players they can pick their own ability scores.
Hell, you might as well. By the time you get to that crazy method for human characters in Unearthed Arcana where I think you roll something like 9d6k3 for a class' prime score, followed by 8d6k3, 7d6k3, etc, you can practically hear Gary pleading with people to please play a human. The next logical step is to assign as many 18s as you think you need to be happy.
 
Is that really a common misconception? I don't follow all of the OSR places, so I'd be really amused if that was a now-common Revival misimpression of what generally happened in practice.

Basically, I'd be amused if that thing I frustratingly never got to do back in the day was assumed to be incredibly commonplace (or even required) by people coming to old timey-D&D from the present for the first time.
Never met anyone who thought it was required since started playing in ~1978. I wanted to do the whole domain thing as a player but never found a DM or other players who were into it....to much book keeping and responsibility I guess. This whole domain thing being part of the creators and their original players vision I suspect was due to their coming from miniature war games.
 
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top