Ever more back in time to OD&D

[Lychee of the Exchequer]

Hello to all of you,

Although I began playing (in truth refereeing ) D&D about 1981, with the Basic Moldvay set and The Keep on the Borderlands, I recently fancied myself with going even more back in time, by mastering G1 Steading of the Hill Giant Chief to some hapless victims... I mean, players !

Am I right in thinking G1 is the first module ever published by TSR (apart from the Temple of the Frog bit) ?

Also, because I find OD&D nigh unreadable (I know, I know... I'm an heretic ;-), I'm thinking of using Sword & Wizardry (Complete ?) to actually master the module.
Will I have thus the ultimate grognard experience ? Or must I tackle some Judges Guild module too ?

 

[robertsconley]

Well if you want to be truly old school, think of an interesting campaign you want to run, for example all the players are running Gladiatorial ludus in ancient Rome. Then figure out the rules you need to make the campaign happen.

From what I read that how the folks did it back in the early 70s.

 

[robertsconley]

Semi-snarky replies aside, using Swords & Wizardry Complete to run G1 sounds good. But if you want a challenge try the Original Tegel Manor by Judges Guild with Swords & Wizardry Complete.

DriveThruRPG

www.drivethrurpg.com

DriveThruRPG

www.drivethrurpg.com

Basically for each room you have a description on the map, maybe a few map notes, a terse one or two sentence description of the content of the room including the creatures. From that you will need to ad-lib something evocative and interesting.

For example take Room C10 Bath



And this description


Along with the fact there is a hall to the south with a rolling sound and a magical statue (the blob symbol) in west end of the room. The adventure has the Starling statue random table to generate what the statue does.

For example I rolled

Gives Scroll of Geas

From those bits weave an interesting room encounter.

On the fly.

Note
I am not claiming this is a superior or badass method. However you will find that most anecdotes and records show that the oldest adventures and campaigns were tersely written notes that function as memory aids for the referee. The exact details were ad-libbed.

So to use Tegel or G1 read over the adventure first. Then use that as the starting point for how you are going to present it. Try to think of it in a way that allows you to adlib the details later. That process will be informative.

 

[Baulderstone]

Will I have thus the ultimate grognard experience ? Or must I tackle some Judges Guild module too ?

If you are going to use prepared material, the Judges Guild stuff is well worth a look. My impression is that the early TSR adventures are more an attempt to package D&D into a form that is easy for new GMs to use rather than presenting it in the way that Gygax or Arneson actually ran it. The Judges Guild books feel more like actually being handed the GM notes from an early campaign of D&D.

 

[Gronan of Simmerya]

Most early modules were convention adventures and thus absurdly deadly.

 

[Lychee of the Exchequer]

Semi-snarky replies aside, using Swords & Wizardry Complete to run G1 sounds good. But if you want a challenge try the Original Tegel Manor by Judges Guild with Swords & Wizardry Complete.

DriveThruRPG

www.drivethrurpg.com

DriveThruRPG

www.drivethrurpg.com

Basically for each room you have a description on the map, maybe a few map notes, a terse one or two sentence description of the content of the room including the creatures. From that you will need to ad-lib something evocative and interesting.

For example take Room C10 Bath

View attachment 13881

And this description
View attachment 13882

Along with the fact there is a hall to the south with a rolling sound and a magical statue (the blob symbol) in west end of the room. The adventure has the Starling statue random table to generate what the statue does.

For example I rolled

From those bits weave an interesting room encounter.

On the fly.

Note
I am not claiming this is a superior or badass method. However you will find that most anecdotes and records show that the oldest adventures and campaigns were tersely written notes that function as memory aids for the referee. The exact details were ad-libbed.

So to use Tegel or G1 read over the adventure first. Then use that as the starting point for how you are going to present it. Try to think of it in a way that allows you to adlib the details later. That process will be informative.

I find this raw form of adventure interesting. I think I will give it a go. I'm not sure about using Tegel Manor, though. It seems huge !

 

[Stan]

Most early modules were convention adventures and thus absurdly deadly.

The tournament adventures also tend to be monty haul games if the party survives and finds all the treasure - they were designed for finding 1-2 caches in the tournament that would be immediately helpful, not for players to find everything and keep it forever.

 

[robertsconley]

I find this raw form of adventure interesting. I think I will give it a go. I'm not sure about using Tegel Manor, though. It seems huge !

Then try this adventure I made. Not quite as evocative as Tegel Manor but not as extensive either.

http://www.batintheattic.com/downloads/Elf%20Lord's%20Temple.pdf

It is a ruined Elven Temple in the forest built on top of an older structure that include a demon lord's tomb..

Blog post explaining what I did.

Minimal Dungeons

In the last post I mentioned that the dungeon I created for the Gold Anime folks was an experiment. I call it a minimal dungeon. The idea ca...

batintheattic.blogspot.com

Or my Old Hill Fort

http://www.batintheattic.com/downloads/Hill%20Fort%20Rev%202.pdf

Better maps

http://www.batintheattic.com/downloads/Hill_Fort.pdf

A enlarged battle map version

http://www.batintheattic.com/downloads/HIl_Fort_Battle_Map.pdf

 

[Ladybird]

Also, because I find OD&D nigh unreadable (I know, I know... I'm an heretic ;-), I'm thinking of using Sword & Wizardry (Complete ?) to actually master the module.
Will I have thus the ultimate grognard experience ? Or must I tackle some Judges Guild module too ?

TBH I think the bigger issue is the amount of things that it lacks - initiative is a big one, and the meta-mechanic "if you want to try something then roll a dice and roll well" is only vaguely hinted at. The actual guts of it aren't too bad, and don't need that much work.

 

[robertsconley]

OD&D expects the reader to know how to play medieval wargames like Chainmail. Therefore a modern reader is not playing OD&D wrong if they sub in a initiative/action system they are familiar with. I don't consider this a flaw of OD&D as this presumes that Gygax and Arneson had the foreknowledge that OD&D was going to be so popular that it would spawn an entire new hobby.

Every subsequent edition had a fuller explanation of how combat worked and other elements of running a campaign because TSR by that point realized they had to write for the general audience many of whom didn't have a background in wargaming.

For example from page 5 of Chainmail 2nd edition

1. Both opponents roll a die; the side with the higher score has the choice of electing to move first (Move) or last (Counter-move).

Many wargames of the time had a roll off to see who goes first (or last) both miniature and hex & counter.

But to stress, if you bring in your own initiative system you are playing OD&D as intended. The same for the other missing bits like skill and ability checks.

 

[Moonglum]

You can do almost anything you want to the rules of combat resolution in D+D and it remains within the bounds of the game's traditions, so long as you stay with the ideas of AC and HP. OD+D presented two very different combat resolution mechanics, with dramatically different implications for the offensive capabilities of player characters, as well as several sub-systems (e.g., hit locations). AD+D is basically re-formatted, hard cover OD+D but adds a bunch of new material for resolving combat (only a little of which gets used very often as written). 2E re-structured things yet again and tacked on its combat options systems. Add in 3-5E and all the essentially canonical OSR games and you will find many different ways of handling the fundamental features of combat: order of actions, the to-hit roll, and damage and its consequences. If you really want to have your mind blown by the lengths people will go to change things in an official version of the game, go look at the BECM hard cover; it has a ton of wild house rules related to combat resolution.

I think a lot of this diversity is a response to structurally unsound things about the original system, which stays there at the center of the discussion despite all the house rules and tacked on official tweaks. These weaknesses are also part of the reason why wizards seem over powered at moderate to high level, and why most campaigns liberally sprinkle magic items around, to the point that your character's ability has more to do with what he or she owns rather than who he or she is.

One issue is that the d20 based 'alternate combat system' from OD+D, which became the core mechanic for the attack roll, has combatants advancing in defensive strength (i.e., HP) faster than offensive firepower (i.e., average damage done to a foe per turn). The ratio of firepower to HP drops by factors of several over the first few levels of advancement in most incarnations of D+D, making fighters seem pretty anemic. This wasn't true in Chainmail, which increased your offensive firepower in direct proportion to level, like HP, meaning two 5th level fighters facing each other are in more or less the same situation as two 1st level fighters. None of the common changes to the combat system really fix this.

A second less obvious but still important issue is that the standard combat resolution has a lot of things in it that are oddly non-linear. E.g., a 5th level fighter is not really that much more dangerous than a 1st level fighter when attacking people with AC 10, but is much more effective when attacking someone with AC 0. You could come up with a rationalization about why this is a good idea, but it is obviously an unintended consequence. It might seem simple to us that low AC's are hard to hit and high AC's easy to hit and advancing levels smoothly improve odds, but when you add these things together as they are commonly implemented the end result is a wildly non linear increase in offensive capability depending on the AC of your target.

 

[Lychee of the Exchequer]

Then try this adventure I made. Not quite as evocative as Tegel Manor but not as extensive either.
[... much good stuff... ]

Thank you ! I will check all this out.

 

[robertsconley]

I think a lot of this diversity is a response to structurally unsound things about the original system, which stays there at the center of the discussion despite all the house rules and tacked on official tweaks.

I view the problem resulting a lack of a full explanation as to what the various elements mean. Gygax relies to much on the readers assumptions. Then later it was one part they never caught up with. One part due to them being busy and one part failing to realize why people were not "getting" it in the first place.

These weaknesses are also part of the reason why wizards seem over powered at moderate to high level, and why most campaigns liberally sprinkle magic items around, to the point that your character's ability has more to do with what he or she owns rather than who he or she is.

Again I don't view this as a failing of OD&D. The fact the character is defined by what they own reflect accurately how Gary and Dave ran their respective campaigns. There nothing wrong with the alternative view that the a character is defined by their abilities but it just that, two alternative views of how character are defined.

OD&D also has the virtue of being developed organically through actual play as opposed to be designed and lightly playtested like later editions were.

The real issue is that Gygax didn't explain any of this clearly.

As for wizards being overpowered, my experience is that the tweaks that AD&D and later editions made only made the issue worse. Fourth edition sidestepped the issue with a system design only marginally related to past edition. Fifth edition addresses this the best by returning to the power curve of OD&D but with different numbers to allow character to have varying abilities. And the designer were very much aware of the issues and mistake made by past editions.

My own experience running OD&D in the form of Swords & Wizardry that the fundamentals of OD&D are sound. That having characters being defined by what they own works just as well for my Majestic Wilderlands as the other systems I used with more character details.

Doesn't mean I didn't tweak OD&D but I did to reflect more how my setting worked then I thought the system was broken. The main core tweak I made was is that fighters get the difference between their 1st level to hit AC 9 and their current level to hit AC 9 as a bonus to the initiative die. Which means in a high level fight with a magic user a fighter will get to go first nearly all the time.

One issue is that the d20 based 'alternate combat system' from OD+D, which became the core mechanic for the attack roll, has combatants advancing in defensive strength (i.e., HP) faster than offensive firepower (i.e., average damage done to a foe per turn). The ratio of firepower to HP drops by factors of several over the first few levels of advancement in most incarnations of D+D, making fighters seem pretty anemic. This wasn't true in Chainmail, which increased your offensive firepower in direct proportion to level, like HP, meaning two 5th level fighters facing each other are in more or less the same situation as two 1st level fighters. None of the common changes to the combat system really fix this.

Again I view this a feature not an issue. In addition this analysis doesn't take into consideration the magic items a 10th level fighter would possess. If you are going by RAW then you need to factor what the various treasure types gives to a party over the life of the campaign.

A second less obvious but still important issue is that the standard combat resolution has a lot of things in it that are oddly non-linear. E.g., a 5th level fighter is not really that much more dangerous than a 1st level fighter when attacking people with AC 10, but is much more effective when attacking someone with AC 0.

I don't think you are talking about OD&D. The OD&D to hit chart improves by the same amount across all armor class.

You could come up with a rationalization about why this is a good idea, but it is obviously an unintended consequence. It might seem simple to us that low AC's are hard to hit and high AC's easy to hit and advancing levels smoothly improve odds, but when you add these things together as they are commonly implemented the end result is a wildly non linear increase in offensive capability depending on the AC of your target.

If you know the history of how D&D evolved then you will understand which each of the mechanics represents. Which also give a foundation for altering them to better suit one idea of how the actions ought to be handled. Although there is a point where the alterations pile up to where you have a new system.

Because of that I don't have any issue equated what I did with GURPS, Fantasy Hero, Harnmaster with what I do with Swords & Wizardry. S&W is far more abstract and far less detailed but in the end character are doing the same thing for the same reason with roughly the same expected results.

I did not have the same experience with D&D 4th edition which has own RAW logic. But did with D&D 5th edition. My use of other older editions predated my learning about the history of D&D's development.

The reason is because the system I gravitate to are those that a grounded with in real world ideas and concepts for the things that emulate the life of our world. The benefit of learning about the history of D&D was understanding how Dave Arneson and Gary Gygax applied their knowledge of history and medieval combat to their games. Which parts are more fantastical than others.

 

[robertsconley]

One example should help with understanding how I think about the issues with D&D.

Levels
In Chainmail a hero is worth four figures. A superhero is worth eight figures. Hero attack the same as four figure and require four hits to kill. Not just four hits either but four simultaneous hits. Which makes them a bit more effective than four figures which can be killed one by one.

So while concept of levels has a independent history from chainmail, Gygax incorporated in part the ideas in Chainmail into his initial version of D&D. And if you use Chainmail to resolve combat, the balance between levels work in a similar way in OD&D.

However the d20 to hit table mutes this. Because a 4th level fighters are not twice as likely to hit as a 2nd level fighter or have twice the attacks unless fighting 1 HD foes.

However instead of using hits to kill, it was changed to hit dice each giving 1d6 hit points. So in terms of combat endurance the chainmail ratio still hold partial sway. A 4th level fighters is will last twice as long in combat as a 2nd level fighter on average.

This muting of the difference between the levels in my opinion and experience is a good thing for D&D. Character still progress in combat ability and endurance but gap between 1st and 10th level is not as large as later editions. Because of that a mob of low level fighters stand a chance of bringing down a high level fighter. It not likely but it is possible and thus a threat the players have to factor in.

Through experience running campaigns I learned how to gauge this in relation to the progression in GURPS or Harnmaster. While OD&D doesn't produce result anywhere near the same level of detail as either of those system, I can effectively narrate what a 10th level fighter does differently than a 4th level fighter. It also helps in adjudicate things players want to do in combat other than roll to hit and do damage.

I find doing this more difficult starting with AD&D 1st edition due to various abilities and bonuses greatly increasing the power of higher level character to the point where I am hard pressed to come up with an equivalent that makes sense in terms of how I present my setting. Except for D&D 5th edition which because of design choices like bounded accuracy makes it easier.

 

[robertsconley]

Hit Points
This is the mechanic of D&D I see get the greatest criticism. The problem I feel result in its development from Hit to Kill. In wargames you want combat to be resolved quickly because the focus is on the battle as a whole not the fate of individual figures. So hits to kill works great in that situation.

But when you are playing individual character 1 hit = death is a bit harsh and worse boring. So Arneson and later Gygax equates 1 hit to kill = 1d6 hit points. And 1 hit equates to 1d6 damage. So while you still could be put down by one hit when starting out, there is a good chance you just will be hurt but still fighting. Thus making a more interesting game.

The consequence is that hit points doesn't represent anything other how long one last until you are unconscious or dead. In classic editions the mechanic was never expanded to explain what losing 5 out of 20 hit point meant. The only thing it has to say is that you are a quarter of the way until you are knocked out or killed.

Since Gygax or Arneson ever wrote much on what they consider losing to be 5 out of 20 hit point to mean, we are left to our own devices to come up with our own rulings. The hobby and later editions have gone round and round about this because many have forgotten that hit points are a simple abstraction of combat endurance.

My own solution is to describe things proportionally. So a hit at 1st level that takes away a quarter of the character's hit point will be described the same way as a hit at 10th level that takes away a quarter of the character's hit point.

But is it a flaw?
Now that I know this, I don't consider the hit points a flaw or weakness of D&D. Because in GURPS, , Harnmarster and myriad of other systems with more realistic injury, some characters do endure longer in combat than others. Except in those systems it not a result of a simple number but the interplay of skill, defense, and what the systems use to represent damage (usually a low number of hit points).

As a result my view that every RPG has combat endurance. And part of the process of using your setting with another system is figure out how to equate combat endurance in each system. The good news you don't need to crunch number, as long as you are in the ballpark the players are fine with it.

 

[Moonglum]

There is more to respond to there than I can handle in one post, but I will briefly note one clear misunderstanding between us. You post the ODD attack odds table and note that it has a smooth progression in the to-hit score as level rises. This does not undermine what I said - in fact it illustrates it. A 10th level fighter has 2x the chance of scoring a hit against an opponent in chainmail as compared to a 1st level fighter with the same stats and gear (14 out of 20 chance to hit vs. 7 out of 20 chance to hit). But HP have increased by a factor of 10 (or so; I forget where you go to flat HP increases in ODD; regardless it is something like that). So, firepower (average damage done per turn) divided by HP has dropped by a factor of 5. Assuming the opposition continues to get tougher as you level up, your experience is that your fighter is falling badly behind in his or her ability to put foes on the ground. Thus, the sense that they turn into characters who are not worth anything other than soaking up damage once the campaign reaches moderate to high levels of experience. Unless you make up a bunch of janky rules to toughen them up, or hand them a bunch of powerful items. That was my original point.

 

[robertsconley]

A 10th level fighter has 2x the chance of scoring a hit against an opponent in chainmail as compared to a 1st level fighter with the same stats and gear (14 out of 20 chance to hit vs. 7 out of 20 chance to hit). But HP have increased by a factor of 10 (or so; I forget where you go to flat HP increases in ODD; regardless it is something like that).

Which is a fine as a point of debate but is not saying the same thing as

r. E.g., a 5th level fighter is not really that much more dangerous than a 1st level fighter when attacking people with AC 10, but is much more effective when attacking someone with AC 0.

What my answer and the illustration of the combat table is responding too. The 1st level and 5th level OD&D fighter both have the same relative effectiveness in attacking AC 0 and AC 9.

The 5th level fighter has effecting a +2 hit AC 9 thus needing an 8, while they need a 17 to hit AC 0 a difference of 9. The 1st level fighter has +0 to hit AC 9 thus needing a 10, while they need a 19 to hit AC 19, again a difference of 9. So the above is not accurate in regards to OD&D.

 

[Lychee of the Exchequer]

Hit Points
[...] hit points doesn't represent anything other how long one last until you are unconscious or dead. In classic editions the mechanic was never expanded to explain what losing 5 out of 20 hit point meant. The only thing it has to say is that you are a quarter of the way until you are knocked out or killed.

[...] I remember reading your thoughts about that some time ago, and it was really illuminating to me.

My own solution is to describe things proportionally. So a hit at 1st level that takes away a quarter of the character's hit point will be described the same way as a hit at 10th level that takes away a quarter of the character's hit point.
[...]

I must say I recently adopted your solution, after some decades of playing D&D by describing wounds as gitantic cataracts of blood gushing forth from PCs, the higher the PCs' hit points the more gigantic the flood :-). While I regret nothing, I'm glad to have stumbled upon your analysis of the D&D system. A good way to not calcify oneself is to radically change things every 20 years or so ! So, thank you.

 

[robertsconley]

factor of 5. Assuming the opposition continues to get tougher as you level up, your experience is that your fighter is falling badly behind in his or her ability to put foes on the ground.

Monsters labor under the same limitation. Except in a few instance, monster damage doesn't scale at higher HD.

Thus, the sense that they turn into characters who are not worth anything other than soaking up damage ... or hand them a bunch of powerful items. That was my original point.

Your analysis ignores much of the context of a OD&D campaign and just look at the mechanics available to the characters. It also ignore the numerous anecdotes of actual play where fighter PCs were able to hold their own against cleric PCs and magic user PC in terms of wealth, power, and their impact on the campaign. And why they were able to accomplish that.

Beyond fighting and spellcasting, RAW OD&D is designed around characters acquiring magic items, and followers. Eventually culminating in building a stronghold of some sort or establishing themselves in some way.

Magic items can be either found, or researched. The importance of followers is such that arguably the best stat for a fighter is a high charisma so up their followers base loyalty and the number of loyal henchmen. Which is also consistent with medieval history one of Gygax's and Arneson's inspirations for D&D.


As for magic items themselves if one looks at the following 20% of the items are fighter specific. A further 20% is useful only to clerics and fighters. Scrolls are also 20% but unlike later editions are used by both clerics and magic users.



However most of the common monster treasure types (B to F) have low odds of magic items appearing ranging from 10% to 35% so the bulk of the PC treasure will be in coin. Which goes toward building a stronghold and employing an army.

This is further reinforced for the table used for treasure in a dungeon.


Because of the way all of this is presented in OD&D RAW, expecting fighters to acquire more powerful swords it isn't a flaw but a distinct feature of how OD&D works.

 

[Moonglum]

Which is a fine as a point of debate but is not saying the same thing as



What my answer and the illustration of the combat table is responding too. The 1st level and 5th level OD&D fighter both have the same relative effectiveness in attacking AC 0 and AC 9.

The 5th level fighter has effecting a +2 hit AC 9 thus needing an 8, while they need a 17 to hit AC 0 a difference of 9. The 1st level fighter has +0 to hit AC 9 thus needing a 10, while they need a 19 to hit AC 19, again a difference of 9. So the above is not accurate in regards to OD&D.

I doubt we are going to make much more progress on this point, but I believe you are fundamentally misinterpreting or misunderstanding my point. The issue is that the numbers you are restating from the attack table have implications about your average damage output that might not be obvious but are easily calculated. I'll give it one more try: The 1st and 5th level fighters have to-hit scores vs. chainmail of 14 and 12 respectively. That means the 1st level character does damage 35 % of the time and the 5 level character does damage 45 % of the time. Thus, the 5th level character has an average damage output of about 1.3x that of the 1st level character. Whatever you make of that number, it is obviously less than the factor of 5 difference in average HP between these characters. I.e., it takes about 3-4x as long for a 5th level character to 'ablate' another 5th level fighter down to 0 as it does for a 1st level character to do the same thing to a 1st level fighter. This is not true in the Chainmail based system, but is clearly true in the d20 based 'alternate' system. Under Chainmail based rules offensive output rises in proportion to HP. In the d20 based system it does not (other than some anomalous things that happen vs. very low AC scores). I don't think it can be stated more clearly than that, so if you still think you disagree on the facts I'll just drop it.

 

[Edgewise]

I doubt we are going to make much more progress on this point, but I believe you are fundamentally misinterpreting or misunderstanding my point.

Yes and no. robertsconley has put in a lot of thought into these topics, and he's answering your critique in detail and with precision. The problem is that you didn't state your point with the same level of precision, so he may be misinterpreting what you meant to say.

Here's my interpretation of what you're saying: the fighter's DPR (damage per round) scales a lot more slowly than its HP. And yes, that's true. Now, if you're taking that point to argue that higher-level magic-users are far more effective than fighters, well...I think that came up about three months ago and led to a long debate that (like most) was never really resolved.

My own belief is that this may well be the case, but it's not nearly as extreme as a simple reading of the numbers might suggest. There are several mitigating factors. First, fighters have a lot more HP than magic-users, and they can wear armor where mages cannot. So clearly a high-level fighter is good at taking damage and a high-level magic-user is good at dishing it out, and not the other way around.

Your first instinct may be to suggest that magic-user offense grows faster than fighter defense, and I haven't analyzed the numbers to the level where I could agree or disagree. But one important thing to keep in mind is that you have to compare XP and not level, since fighters advance significantly faster.

Another important thing to keep in mind is that D&D doesn't consist of players having their PCs duel one-on-one. Instead, play is almost always cooperative, and in this context, each class has an important role to play in a larger adventuring party. A group of magic-users might be a force to reckon with, but a nasty trap or a couple lucky attack rolls by goblin archers can quickly bring the whole enterprise into question. Not as easily with fighters, of course.

Finally, stats really don't tell the entire picture. While some combats will certainly consist of PCs trading blows for a few rounds with a mob of monsters, good players should be thinking outside the box. Is there a way to lead the enemy into that pit trap the party avoided a few turns back? Can someone block the passage by toppling one of those huge precarious statues? A good plan can be more valuable than a fireball and a vorpal blade. You've got a wand of lightning bolts? Well I've got a tribe of friendly trolls I won over yesterday with some spoiled rations.

After all, one of the main principles of old-school gaming is to forget about balance. When confronted with an obstacle, players should be thinking about their surroundings, not what's on their character sheets. If the game is all about insuring that you can always fight your way out of a problem, that line of thinking is discouraged.

 

[robertsconley]

I don't think it can be stated more clearly than that, so if you still think you disagree on the facts I'll just drop it.

I don't disagree. And this can be seen in my D&D Combat simulator which simulate to D&D combatants whacking other 10,000 times.

Two 1st level fighters (+0 to hit) with AC 4[15] (chain and shield), 4 HP each, dealing 1d6 each, will take on average 2.873 rounds of combat to resolve their fight to a conclusion

Two 5th level fighters (+2 to hit) with AC 4[15] (chain and shield), 20 HP each, dealing 1d6 each, will take on average 12.05 rounds of combat to resolve their fight to a conclusion

But that not the whole story in OD&D

It is highly likely by 5th level the fighter will have +1 swords which drops the average combat resolution down to 8.41 rounds.
It is highly likely by 5th level each fighter will like have a small group of retainers and maybe a 1st level henchmen which further effects the resolution of the fight.

In addition the same power curve effects higher HD creatures. Some do have special attacks that allows them to deal more damage. For example Ogres will 1d6+2 damage when they hit.

A 4th level fighter (+2 to hit) with AC 4[15] (chain and shield), 14 HP, dealing 1d6 faces an Ogre with AC 5[14], 4 HD (+4 to hit), averaging 14 hit point dealing 1d6+2 damage the Ogre will win 69% of the time with the combat taking an average of 7 rounds to complete.

But if you add in a +1 sword then the 4th level fighter will win on average 52% of the time and combats takes 6.05 rounds to complete. If you throw in the fighter being able to buy Plate Armor AC 2[17[ but still hasn't gotten a magic sword then the Ogres wins 57% of the time taking on average 7.9 rounds to resolve. If the fighter has Plate Armor and a +1 sword then the fighter wins 63% of the time taking 6.5 rounds to resolve.

Buying Plate Armor and having a +1 sword by 4th level are not unreasonable expectations for an OD&D campaign. Thus needs to be factored into an analysis of OD&D.

The power curve you described in your post is not an issue for people playing OD&D campaigns

 

[robertsconley]

Your first instinct may be to suggest that magic-user offense grows faster than fighter defense, and I haven't analyzed the numbers to the level where I could agree or disagree. But one important thing to keep in mind is that you have to compare XP and not level, since fighters advance significantly faster.

It gets wonky at levels 5th to 8th for OD&D. The Magic user at 6th to 8th level doesn't experience the doubling of needed xp the other two classes have. This was altered starting with B/X D&D. However for AD&D it was retained. Thus a Fighter needs 250,001 xp to get 9th level while a magic user only needs 135,001 xp.

2000 xp Fighter 2nd, MU 1st, Cleric 2nd
4000 xp Fighter 3rd, MU 2nd, Cleric 3rd
8000 xp Fighter 4th, MU 3rd, Cleric 4th
16000 xp Fighter 5th, MU 4th, Cleric 5th
32000 xp Fighter 6th, MU 5th, Cleric 6th
64000 xp Fighter 7th, MU 7th, Cleric 7th
120,000 xp Fighter 8th, MU 9th, Cleric 8th
240,000 xp Fighter 9th, MU 9th, Cleric 9th

 

[Edgewise]

It gets wonky at levels 5th to 8th for OD&D. The Magic user at 6th to 8th level doesn't experience the doubling of needed xp the other two classes have.

Wow, what an odd little wiggle. The retention in AD&D implies two possibilities to me: either it wasn't originally a mistake, or EGG just transcribed that bit without knowing there was an error in the original material. It's hard for me to imagine what the rationale would be for that.

 

[Moonglum]

I feel like now we are all in violent agreement.

 

[robertsconley]

On the math but we don't agree on its implications for a tabletop roleplaying campaign.

 

[robertsconley]

Wow, what an odd little wiggle. The retention in AD&D implies two possibilities to me: either it wasn't originally a mistake, or EGG just transcribed that bit without knowing there was an error in the original material. It's hard for me to imagine what the rationale would be for that.

And throughout the early playtesting of my Majestic Fantasy rules this was noticed by more than a few players. So I rehashed the charts as shown in this document. Then I decided whether a class used the 1,500 xp progression, the 2,000 xp progression, or the 2,500 xp progress.

It worked out quite well for my campaigns. However I do consider the exact XP progression part of the world building for the setting. One to be made on what the referee thinks feels right. My preference for my settings is that different classes are more difficult to learn and this difficulty is uniform irregardless of skill level.

However a case could be made that a class involves some difficult learning at the start. Noticeably easier in the middle but then gets more difficult again when you reach the pinnacle. Or any other arbitrary decision on how progression in a class ought to go.

In short OD&D doesn't cease to be OD&D if you tinker around with the XP charts.

 

[Edgewise]

However a case could be made that a class involves some difficult learning at the start. Noticeably easier in the middle but then gets more difficult again when you reach the pinnacle. Or any other arbitrary decision on how progression in a class ought to go.

Definitely true, which is why I don't totally discount the possibility that it was intentional. But it would be an odd decision to include such a fiddly mechanical bit of simulationism right where nobody would really care.

In short OD&D doesn't cease to be OD&D if you tinker around with the XP charts.

That's key. I was thinking that the most OD&D thing you could do would be to adopt the B/X XP progression because it clearly fixes an error. "Hey Bill, the Expert Set just came out today, and guess what? You were right about magic-user XP. We'll use this new new table going forward."

 

[Spellslinging Sellsword]

I've long believed that the B/X version of D&D is the OD&D set properly written and edited.

 

[Moonglum]

I agree that B/X is the inheritor of the spirit of the first 3 books of OD+D. If you accept the supplements of OD+D as 'cannon' then it is hard to avoid the conclusion that 1E is the next step on that evolutionary path. I find what I like best is a hybrid where the system is most like B/X and the spells and monsters include all the stuff from 1E and the 2E spell compendia.

 

[Baulderstone]

I agree that B/X is the inheritor of the spirit of the first 3 books of OD+D. If you accept the supplements of OD+D as 'cannon' then it is hard to avoid the conclusion that 1E is the next step on that evolutionary path. I find what I like best is a hybrid where the system is most like B/X and the spells and monsters include all the stuff from 1E and the 2E spell compendia.

AD&D 1E is a strange step on the evolutionary path as it wasn't the game as anyone actually played it. Between being tired of constantly fielding questions about running the game and wanting a thorough version for competitive tournament play, Gygax wrote an edition that had a lot of rules he never used himself. It's why people stumble when trying to play it RAW. It may have the distinction of being the first RPG that nobody had actually played as written before it was published.

 

[Spellslinging Sellsword]

Yeah, you could play quite a good game of D&D with B/X as core engine then add the races, classes, spells, monsters, and treasure from 1st Edition AD&D.

 

[Baulderstone]

Yeah, you could play quite a good game of D&D with B/X as core engine then add the races, classes, spells, monsters, and treasure from 1st Edition AD&D.

I started playing RPGs in the early '80s, so that was the only way I saw D&D played in my circles. Even when people said they were just playing AD&D, they had carried a lot B/X over in their heads.

 

[Stan]

Yeah, you could play quite a good game of D&D with B/X as core engine then add the races, classes, spells, monsters, and treasure from 1st Edition AD&D.

Yea, I think that's how a lot of us who started with basic played. AD&D was poorly organized and I didn't own a phb for a couple of years, just read parts when I borrowed it. Some of the retroclones explicitly have it set up like this, with a basic core then optional extras.

 

[Moonglum]

I think all of pre-3E D+D is a hugely mutable playing field held together with a few core concepts, and that it has been that way pretty much forever. In today's environment of easy desktop publishing this manifests as OSR clones and variants, but in the 70's and 80s there was just as much innovation and variety, just expressed as house rules. A factoid that illuminates how porous the boundaries of the game's rules are: the original core of Rolemaster ('Arms Law') was first pitched as a bolt-on combat system for D+D. I don't recall exactly how they phrased it without violating trademarks, but it was pretty obvious this was the intent. And, of course, a lot of Judge's Guild materials introduced house rules like social levels and other things not found in any canonical version of D+D.

 

[Edgewise]

Yeah, you could play quite a good game of D&D with B/X as core engine then add the races, classes, spells, monsters, and treasure from 1st Edition AD&D.

Here. you. go.

 

[Baulderstone]

I think all of pre-3E D+D is a hugely mutable playing field held together with a few core concepts, and that it has been that way pretty much forever. In today's environment of easy desktop publishing this manifests as OSR clones and variants, but in the 70's and 80s there was just as much innovation and variety, just expressed as house rules. A factoid that illuminates how porous the boundaries of the game's rules are: the original core of Rolemaster ('Arms Law') was first pitched as a bolt-on combat system for D+D. I don't recall exactly how they phrased it without violating trademarks, but it was pretty obvious this was the intent. And, of course, a lot of Judge's Guild materials introduced house rules like social levels and other things not found in any canonical version of D+D.

Articles in the early issues of Dragon were largely people's house rules as well. When I returned to D&D with 3E, I remember being disappointed at how "official" Dragon felt, with all the content being so consistent in design.

 

[Edgewise]

Articles in the early issues of Dragon were largely people's house rules as well. When I returned to D&D with 3E, I remember being disappointed at how "official" Dragon felt, with all the content being so consistent in design.

The further back you go in Dragon, the wilder and woollier it gets. The early stuff borders on stoner musings. Dragon #5 has this insane witch ...class? monsters? NPC? It has some crazy spells and magic items, my favorite of which is this:

MOUNTAIN SEEDS
Similar to Hill Seeds in function but much deadlier. When pitched into the air these globes will swell to the size of a castle almost immediately. With one such seed a wizard could crush armies or destroy a town. They are safest when dropped from above, but can be thrown up from the ground if you are able to use teleportation and escape before it comes down.

Seems reasonable to me! Incidentally, without diving too deeply, I'm pretty sure this was designed for OD&D.

To top it all off, well...here's the byline:

We received this ms. over 15 months ago, and have been unable to establish the identity of the author. If he or she is reading this, please step forward and receive your just reward. ED

 

[Midas]

The further back you go in Dragon, the wilder and woollier it gets. The early stuff borders on stoner musings. Dragon #5 has this insane witch ...class? monsters? NPC? It has some crazy spells and magic items...

And then Witches' Court Marshes came out based on that article!

 

[Midas]

I find this raw form of adventure interesting. I think I will give it a go. I'm not sure about using Tegel Manor, though. It seems huge !

Tegel Manor is more of a whole campaign than a scenario. Tegel Manor should be thought of as a fortified city riven by gang territory politics.
Read the whole scenario, but don't study every room, item, or encounter. Most of the hundreds of these are adventure hooks, not campaign plot points, use them as necessary.

Three things to notice if you run it:
1) When the PCs first arrive in Tegel Village they discover that it is a hotbed of secret (and not so secret) factions playing off one another. They'll tell the PCs that the place of adventure (TM) is the manor on the hill, but it isn't the only one, or the first they could discover.
2) Before play the referee should know the history of the Rump family and who is still around. Smart players will want to know this as well.
3) Know the turf and relationships between all the players in the manor. It is entirely possible to clean out one section of the manor (at least for a time) with none of the other movers & shakers being aware.