OD&D and B/X

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
Séadna

Séadna

Legendary Pubber
Joined
Sep 3, 2018
Messages
6,435
Reaction score
14,653
Although I've played RPGs for around 25 years, I never got into D&D until about a year and a half ago. Not due to being "too cool for the popular stuff", I couldn't get it when I was young and only really saw it first in college, but never happened to have a game.

I've now played a good deal of B/X (and Lamentations), but not yet OD&D. So I was wondering, what do people like about one system or the other?

Naively OD&D seems really similar to B/X, but many like Swords and Wizardry and not Labyrinth Lord (and similar). So what are the distinct qualities and differences at the table that differentiate the systems?

And further, preferences/differences for White Box OD&D vs OD&D with supplements (e.g. Swords and Wizardry Complete).
 
I've never played OD&D but the major difference seems to be the d6 damage standard in OD&D. I prefer B/X and BECMI (which I think we need an agreed upon term for, either 'Basic' or 'Classic'?) because as Spellslinging Sellsword Spellslinging Sellsword says it is more clearly written and plays smoothly. That it is what I started with probably have an influence as well.

I do tend to be a D&D universalist though, I think most of the editions play quite similarly to each other, up to 3e at least. I know from experience that B/X, BECMI, 1e and 2e play very similarly. But even 3e and even more so 5e are recognizably the same game.
 
Last edited:
OD&D has d6 damage and hit points the same across classes, no race-classes, and much more ambiguous language leaving many things open to your particular DM's interpretation. Aside from that, not a whole lot of difference between OD&D and Basic D&D. About the same degree of difference as between AD&D and 2nd edition if my memory isn't totally off. And all of those are pretty compatible. Can't speak for 3rd through 5th.
 
OD&D can be a bit of a tough read if you haven't got experience with miniatures gaming just because of the way that certain things are assumed rather than stated, but I find it to be a refreshing rules set because of its simplicity and its brevity. If you take the OD&D boxed set and sprinkle in some Strategic Review and supplements you pretty much get AD&D and, as both Spellslinging Sellsword and Dumarest noted, it has a lot in common with B/X in philosophy. B/X has that race=class thing, which differs some from OD&D, but otherwise they are very similar.

Also, keep in mind that "OD&D" can mean a lot of different things to different players. "Just the box" may be pretty vanilla and may have all-d6 hit dice and weapon damage but Greyhawk changed both, so depending upon which options are chosen the game can have a very different feel. With all of the supplements you get Assassin, Monk, Paladin, Druid, and SR/Dragon brought in Illusionist, Ranger, Bard, and others. In addition you can add in hit location, psionics, artifacts, demons, and lots of other interesting rules options. It's actually pretty amazing to note just how much classic stuff was actually in place in OD&D by 1976 or so.

I was showing my son (who plays 5E) my OD&D rulebooks side-by-side with his 5E Player's Handbook and he was amazed to see just how few pages make up the original rules.
 
Yeah talking about OD&D is a challenge because everyone has different things included or excluded. Likewise Basic D&D can mean Holmes Basic or B/X or BECMI or RC.

AD&D is just a clusterfuck because I have never met anyone who played the proper way for combat. Somewhere along the way it's aleaal houseruled. Do you include weapon speed and how is initiative done? Did you actually have a Caller? Did you pay for training and take time to level? Anyone roll and get psionics? It goes on and on
 
finarvyn said:
OD&D can be a bit of a tough read if you haven't got experience with miniatures gaming just because of the way that certain things are assumed rather than stated, but I find it to be a refreshing rules set because of its simplicity and its brevity. If you take the OD&D boxed set and sprinkle in some Strategic Review and supplements you pretty much get AD&D and, as both Spellslinging Sellsword and Dumarest noted, it has a lot in common with B/X in philosophy. B/X has that race=class thing, which differs some from OD&D, but otherwise they are very similar.

Also, keep in mind that "OD&D" can mean a lot of different things to different players. "Just the box" may be pretty vanilla and may have all-d6 hit dice and weapon damage but Greyhawk changed both, so depending upon which options are chosen the game can have a very different feel. With all of the supplements you get Assassin, Monk, Paladin, Druid, and SR/Dragon brought in Illusionist, Ranger, Bard, and others. In addition you can add in hit location, psionics, artifacts, demons, and lots of other interesting rules options. It's actually pretty amazing to note just how much classic stuff was actually in place in OD&D by 1976 or so.

I was showing my son (who plays 5E) my OD&D rulebooks side-by-side with his 5E Player's Handbook and he was amazed to see just how few pages make up the original rules.
Click to expand...
https://www.rpgpub.com/threads/od-d-in-character-thread.1816/

We're ostensibly playing OD&D here, but honestly I'll drag in anything I need from Greyhawk, Blackmoor, Eldritch Wizardry, Gods, Demi-Gods & Heroes, Basic D&D, Expert D&D, AD&D PHB, AD&D DMG, AD&D Monster Manual, Oriental Adventures, and Dragon magazine as needed. So, pretty much anything I have lying around that might be useful. So far I haven't really had to change anything except I kept all weapons doing d6 damage.
 
finarvyn said:
OD&D can be a bit of a tough read if you haven't got experience with miniatures gaming just because of the way that certain things are assumed rather than stated, but I find it to be a refreshing rules set because of its simplicity and its brevity. If you take the OD&D boxed set and sprinkle in some Strategic Review and supplements you pretty much get AD&D and, as both Spellslinging Sellsword and Dumarest noted, it has a lot in common with B/X in philosophy. B/X has that race=class thing, which differs some from OD&D, but otherwise they are very similar.

Also, keep in mind that "OD&D" can mean a lot of different things to different players. "Just the box" may be pretty vanilla and may have all-d6 hit dice and weapon damage but Greyhawk changed both, so depending upon which options are chosen the game can have a very different feel. With all of the supplements you get Assassin, Monk, Paladin, Druid, and SR/Dragon brought in Illusionist, Ranger, Bard, and others. In addition you can add in hit location, psionics, artifacts, demons, and lots of other interesting rules options. It's actually pretty amazing to note just how much classic stuff was actually in place in OD&D by 1976 or so.

I was showing my son (who plays 5E) my OD&D rulebooks side-by-side with his 5E Player's Handbook and he was amazed to see just how few pages make up the original rules.
Click to expand...

A lot o contemporary wargamers couldn’t make heads or tails of the LBB either. I recall Stafford, St. Andre, Heinsoo and a few other designers who all had wargaming backgrounds saying in various interviews they couldn’t really figure it out, it‘s one of the reasons they designed their own games and the Perrin Conventions were so popular and spread so quickly.
 
Dumarest said:
Séadna Séadna, we have an opening in the OD&D game if you want to join it and try it on for size. Not the same as tabletop, but it's something!
Click to expand...
Thanks! I got my first run at OD&D using "White Box Medieval Adventure Game", but it was only two sessions. I'll have a quick read through the thread and put up a character in the OOC thread.
 
Séadna said:
Thanks! I got my first run at OD&D using "White Box Medieval Adventure Game", but it was only two sessions. I'll have a quick read through the thread and put up a character in the OOC thread.
Click to expand...
Good choice. It's my favorite version of my WB rules set. Not 100% OD&D, because we had to change a few things for legal reasons, but I think it's still pretty darned close. (You could use OD&D saving throws, for example, instead of the one-save method called for in S&W. Not a big change IMO, but some purist types got grumpy about it.)
 
Séadna said:
Naively OD&D seems really similar to B/X, but many like Swords and Wizardry and not Labyrinth Lord (and similar). So what are the distinct qualities and differences at the table that differentiate the systems?
Click to expand...

There are several major kinds of OD&D
OD&D core book only which plays differently than other classic D&D edition because of things like all damage is 1d6, hit points are variation of a d6 roll, etc.

OD&D + Greyhawk, is when D&D became D&D. There are now different dice for hit points depending on class, the thief got introduced, weapons have variable damage dice, etc.

OD&D + Supplements + Strategic Review is proto AD&D. In one sense AD&D is compilation of the above three. While Holmes, B/X, BECMI D&D are basically a continuation of OD&D + Greyhawk.

The biggest difference is race as class. In OD&D races have classes, starting with Holmes, then B/X, then BECMI, races are a class. Otherwise B/X functions as a cleaned up version of OD&D + Greyhawk without the quirks of Holmes. BECMI is an alternate take on classic D&D. AD&D went down one way, BECMI went down the other.

Swords & Wizardry is more popular than Labyrinth Lord because it is more accessible to house ruling. Labyrinth Lord is open but it is also only presented as a complete rulebook.

S&W comes in three flavors, White Box, Core, and Complete. Core has a editable word document that easy to use for house ruling. Also core is a more stripped down version of classic D&D than Labyrinth Lord. All small things but when added up give it a slight edge for house ruling and making followup products.

But Labyrinth Lord and B/X isn't without love either. Recently the B/X Essential series came out that been well received.
 
Bunch said:
AD&D is just a clusterfuck because I have never met anyone who played the proper way for combat. Somewhere along the way it's aleaal houseruled. Do you include weapon speed and how is initiative done? Did you actually have a Caller? Did you pay for training and take time to level? Anyone roll and get psionics? It goes on and on
Click to expand...

Back in the day (late 70s/early 80s) in my neck of the woods (rural NW PA) most used B/X Combat with AD&D stuff (classes, monsters, spells, etc).
 
Bunch said:
AD&D is just a clusterfuck because I have never met anyone who played the proper way for combat.
Click to expand...

I suppose you had it figured out back in the day?

The stuff about initiative is a terrible piece of writing. However thanks to online discussion and AD&D A.D.D.C.I.T document there actually a simple explanation.

First there are ten six-second segments in a one minute AD&D combat round.

Second, you declare your action before rolling initiative.

When one rolls initiative in AD&D, you are not rolling to see who goes first directly. You rolling to see which segment your opponent starts on. If you roll a 5 for initiative and your opponent rolls a 2, you start on segment two, and your opponent starts on segment five. Which is why rolling high is still better in AD&D initiative.

For melee, it works as expected, the party with the high roll gets to attack first and that is that.

For spellcasting, it depends on what spell is being cast. With the above example any spell with a 1 or 2 segment casting time go off before the opposition. A segment 3 casting time spell will go off at the same time. Anything longer will go after the opposition. Which means if the opposition manages to damage the caster, the spell will fail.

The complexity starts to kick in when initiative is tied. When that happens the rules for weapon speed kick in. That when multiple attack with weapons like dagger with low weapon speed will occur.

The problem with this is that most understand "I go" "You go" system a lot better. Most don't like having to declare an action, especially when it is a one minute combat round. Plus has issue if you want to do individual initiative.

When all summed up meant most defaulted to how B/X handled initiative and combat. Why later editions of D&D including AD&D 2nd edition, tend to branch off of how B/X handled things rather than AD&D.
 
robertsconley said:
I suppose you had it figured out back in the day?

The stuff about initiative is a terrible piece of writing. However thanks to online discussion and AD&D A.D.D.C.I.T document there actually a simple explanation.

First there are ten six-second segments in a one minute AD&D combat round.

Second, you declare your action before rolling initiative.

When one rolls initiative in AD&D, you are not rolling to see who goes first directly. You rolling to see which segment your opponent starts on. If you roll a 5 for initiative and your opponent rolls a 2, you start on segment two, and your opponent starts on segment five. Which is why rolling high is still better in AD&D initiative.

For melee, it works as expected, the party with the high roll gets to attack first and that is that.

For spellcasting, it depends on what spell is being cast. With the above example any spell with a 1 or 2 segment casting time go off before the opposition. A segment 3 casting time spell will go off at the same time. Anything longer will go after the opposition. Which means if the opposition manages to damage the caster, the spell will fail.

The complexity starts to kick in when initiative is tied. When that happens the rules for weapon speed kick in. That when multiple attack with weapons like dagger with low weapon speed will occur.

The problem with this is that most understand "I go" "You go" system a lot better. Most don't like having to declare an action, especially when it is a one minute combat round. Plus has issue if you want to do individual initiative.

When all summed up meant most defaulted to how B/X handled initiative and combat. Why later editions of D&D including AD&D 2nd edition, tend to branch off of how B/X handled things rather than AD&D.
Click to expand...
Oh God we had no idea how complex it was back then. But like a lot of folks at the time we couldn't know. Half the rules were in the DMG that came out a year after the PHB. Like you we played with BX initiative because we added AD&D to our Holmes/basic game as the books were published.


AD&D had a release schedule and design goals that did not work well together.
 
I feel like OD+D without supplements is a stripped down and confusingly presented ancestor of BD+D, but with the supplements is clearly a first draft of 1E AD+D. I own OD+D but have never understood why I would play it as a stand alone game, particularly with the supplements turned 'on', as it is functionally indistinguishable from my 1E AD+D hard covers.
 
Moonglum said:
I feel like OD+D without supplements is a stripped down and confusingly presented ancestor of BD+D, but with the supplements is clearly a first draft of 1E AD+D. I own OD+D but have never understood why I would play it as a stand alone game, particularly with the supplements turned 'on', as it is functionally indistinguishable from my 1E AD+D hard covers.
Click to expand...

The numbers in AD&D are inflated just enough to make a long term difference in how the campaign flows. But yes OD&D + Supplements is not much different than AD&D 1e.

What I did for my own rules is retain the use of d6 + mods for hit points, capped magic items and attribute bonuses at +3. It not quite like OD&D core only, but it does shift the power curve enough downwards to make for a gritter campaign compare to when I ran AD&D back in the day.

For AD&D if Unearthed Arcana is added to the mix the power curve noticeably goes up.

None of this is good or bad, the point is to learn the differences so you can tune classic D&D to what you want for your campaign. You got a high end represented by AD&D 1st + Unearthed Arcana or AD&D 2nd + Skills & Powers, and a low end represented by OD&D core book only. Between the two you can add this or that to get the exact feel you want.
 
Bunch said:
Oh God we had no idea how complex it was back then. But like a lot of folks at the time we couldn't know. Half the rules were in the DMG that came out a year after the PHB. Like you we played with BX initiative because we added AD&D to our Holmes/basic game as the books were published.


AD&D had a release schedule and design goals that did not work well together.
Click to expand...

I know exactly what you mean. Traditional Roleplaying didn't supplant wargamming in my area among us in junior high and high school until the DMG was released in late 1979. We weren't aware of Dragon Magazine until after the AD&D DMG supplemental material was published. And most of us didn't know about OD&D until a year or two later. For my particular age the big introduction was Holmes.
 
Moonglum said:
I feel like OD+D without supplements is a stripped down and confusingly presented ancestor of BD+D, but with the supplements is clearly a first draft of 1E AD+D. I own OD+D but have never understood why I would play it as a stand alone game, particularly with the supplements turned 'on', as it is functionally indistinguishable from my 1E AD+D hard covers.
Click to expand...
For me it's partly the fact that AD&D has that standardized "encyclopedia" feel where Gary tried to codify everything, but OD&D has that loose feel where you are encouraged to adjust rules and make things your own. Even with a lot of the stuff from the supplements, OD&D just doesn't feel as heavy to me somehow. Just my two cents -- both are great games!
 
finarvyn said:
For me it's partly the fact that AD&D has that standardized "encyclopedia" feel where Gary tried to codify everything, but OD&D has that loose feel where you are encouraged to adjust rules and make things your own. Even with a lot of the stuff from the supplements, OD&D just doesn't feel as heavy to me somehow. Just my two cents -- both are great games!
Click to expand...
He may have tried but he failed pretty hard in practice due to poor editing. Most people couldn't even find all the right rules let alone the order to use them in. I'd bet 90% of AD&D players used the combat table, treasure tables, encounter and maybe a few other tables out of the whole DMG when it came out. They just chugged along playing B/X plus the PHB and those tables listed above for the most part.
 
I have the TSR White Box, and I thought to myself, "There's a great game in there somewhere, but darned if I know how to play it." Enter Swords & Wizardry, and WBFMAG, and now I get it. ;)

I would say that B/X is the most elegant and streamlined version, and plays well out of the box. Add to that the B/X Companion, and you're set for life. That being said, the streamlined nature leaves me wanting a bit more. The White Box plus the supplements as rewritten in S&W Complete is essentially a proto-AD&D which is just right for me. There's more moving parts, and more depth possible, and one can easily pull from nearly any TSR product and convert on the fly due to it being "in the middle" of the various editions.

If you want the White Box feel alone, then White Box: Fantastic Medieval Adventure Game is smooth as silk.

Finally, one can also check out Blueholme, a retelling of the Holmes Basic, expanded into high levels based on Holmes' own notes. Pretty cool, IMO.

Basically (see what I did there???) it depends on what your idealized D&D is. What is thrilling to you about it? What stories about it that you read online capture your imagination? That will help you figure out what you're after.
 
finarvyn said:
... but OD&D has that loose feel where you are encouraged to adjust rules and make things your own. Even with a lot of the stuff from the supplements, OD&D just doesn't feel as heavy to me somehow. Just my two cents -- both are great games!
Click to expand...

This for me. I completely agree that B/X is a very robust and well-organised ruleset but I really like the looseness of OD&D (in the form of S&W whitebox). It just makes me feel like I have more creative freedom... because I have to make a lot of stuff up :smile: It''s not really anything to do with the mechanics - I consider the mechanical differences trivial. An example would be that I'd be more inclined to make up my own magical treasures with OD&D and, conversely, more inclined to use stock items out of the book with B/X.

Edit: I'm trying to figure out a way to say that, for me, it feels like there's an attitudinal shift and I'm trying to figure out a way of saying it that doesn't suggest my head just disappeared up my own ass :smile:
 
I feel the same way. To me, OD&D feels like a set of suggestions and examples, a starting point which it's assumed every individual will add to and customize and gradually create their own unique game, whereas B/X, even though almost all of the rules are the same, feels to me more like a complete system for a simple game that's best played as presented in the books without adding or changing much of anything. When I look at OD&D I immediately start wanting to tinker with stuff - to add new character types, change around the combat and magic rules, come up with all new replacement sets of monsters, etc. - while when I look at B/X I don't feel that same urge; I just want to start playing a game right out of the book that will look and feel pretty much just like every other Platonic B/X game (the same 7 classes, the same equipment, spell, magic item, and monster lists, the same combat rules, the same mapping symbols, etc.).

I'm not sure why that is - as far as I recall there's nothing in the B/X books that says not to add to or change the rules by adding new classes, spells, magic items, etc. (though IIRC the later BECMI version did include some language to that effect). It's just something about the simplicity and elegance of the B/X rulebooks that makes me feel both that such additions and changes aren't really needed and that making them would be messing with perfection, over-complicating things, muddying up clear waters.
 
Spellslinging Sellsword said:
In my opinion, B/X and OD&D are about 95% the same game and B/X more clearly explains things and plays smoother in all aspects. Essentially, B/X is OD&D with a good editor.
Click to expand...
Exactly! There is a different feel to the OD&D books though, more zine. Especially when you include the supplements.

Curious on your take going from B/X to OD&D.
 
Moonglum said:
I feel like OD+D without supplements is a stripped down and confusingly presented ancestor of BD+D, but with the supplements is clearly a first draft of 1E AD+D. I own OD+D but have never understood why I would play it as a stand alone game, particularly with the supplements turned 'on', as it is functionally indistinguishable from my 1E AD+D hard covers.
Click to expand...
Well we played OD&D because there was no 1e, yet. Different DMs used different stuff from the supplements and Judges Guild products. But as 1e came out we incorporated it. Somehow B/X was for little kids, so we avoided it....it’s not something I’m proud of and realize the value of B/X today.
 
I don't think I've ever met someone who can say with a straight face that they regularly played 1E AD+D with initiative and weapon vs. armor type rules used as written. I regularly try to use the latter because I think they accomplish something important, but it all unravels after an hour or two at the table and we drop it again (like everyone else, I suspect). Sooooo much of 1E is stuff I doubt anyone, including the authors, ever seriously used for any significant period of time (pummeling, psionics...). But its still my favorite edition because it presents the first really extensive and nicely produced version of the game's core 'meat' of monsters, spells and items.
 
Moonglum said:
I don't think I've ever met someone who can say with a straight face that they regularly played 1E AD+D with initiative and weapon vs. armor type rules used as written. I regularly try to use the latter because I think they accomplish something important, but it all unravels after an hour or two at the table and we drop it again (like everyone else, I suspect). Sooooo much of 1E is stuff I doubt anyone, including the authors, ever seriously used for any significant period of time (pummeling, psionics...). But its still my favorite edition because it presents the first really extensive and nicely produced version of the game's core 'meat' of monsters, spells and items.
Click to expand...
It's a pretty well established fact that Gygax never ran AD&D as written, so it really is a futile effort to attempt it yourself. That said, I agree that the AD&D books are a great resource for either OD&D or B/X.

In believe AD&D is simply a response to the endless letters asking for clarification that TSR would get. OD&D was the game Gygax ran, and AD&D was the comprehensive edition that he thought people wanted. B/X actually managed to find a sweet spot in the middle.
 
OD&D is a build-your-own-game toolbox kit. AD&D 1E is also a build-your-own-game toolbox kit, albeit with a lot more tools (many good, some not-so-good) and a lot more suggestions about how you should and shouldn't build your game. B/X is an already-built game. Sure you can take it apart and rebuild it if you want, because it's built on the flexible chassis of OD&D, but you're not required, or even expected to, the way you are with both OD&D and AD&D.
 
Last edited:
To be fair, OD+D is an unbelievable mess, just as a written document. This is often rationalized by saying that a bunch of ideas were implied and experienced war gamers would understand what was meant. Horse Hooey. The writing and organization are just god awful, the game presents multiple conflicting versions of core systems (like, how you attack someone in combat!) without really explaining either. The point isn't that you are encouraged to make up your own way or resolving combat; its that the books tell you how to do it but are completely unintelligible so the only people who can actually play are those who make up their own rules. If it weren't for the genius of the core concept and the brilliant shared experience of actually playing, OD+D would be a wash out as a game.
 
Looks interesting. I wonder what they are doing other than reformatting and compiling things from the Basic/Expert set? They mention new classes, spells, etc. but it is hard to know what they mean.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top