Original D&D Session

[d30]

Wanted to open a topic for this even though we all pretty much posted our comments on the Meetup board.

It reminded me a great deal of playing HeroQuest. You get a very basic character types and simple character progression and no built in personalities or system generated character quirks. It has been so long since I played that sort of system, I had forgotten how unnecessary structured personalities are for roleplaying. I enjoyed finding the characters personality through play like I did back in the day. Most of the stuff I have played lately involve character flaws being generated by mitigating negative points for the purpose of attaining more positive points. You wind up not just picking flaws you think would be fun. You pick up the ones that you think will do the least amount of damage to your character mathematically. Also these systems encourage more in-depth character generation and a much longer likely lifespan. Whether this creates the sense of more in-depth roleplay is arguable as any character is going to have as much personality as any player is willing to put into it regardless of the system. The only inarguable difference is that a more complex system will reward players with more realistic play and systemic ramifications for the little quirks they enjoy. It could be argued that by minimizing rules, roleplaying fills in the gaps. The less a player is worried about the math behind the rules and their character, the more time they can spend thinking about their character reacting to the environment.

Kind of stream of consciousness, but now I am out of time.

[Dagger]

Those are great observations!

I've read many accounts of how the game was played in the early days, which is what inspired me to run the one shot. What I've found is that groups basically treated a starting character like they would a unit in a wargame. It was a nameless/faceless flunky. Only through play did characters begin to gain noteriety and a personality. In those days, when a character made it to 4th level he was considered to be a hero-type. At 8th level he was considered to be a superhero and on par with the great characters of literature. Part of that path to glory was creating the character's persona through play, as you mentioned.

A big distinction between old school games like that and the newer stuff is that the game started when you sat down at the table. Creating the character was part of the game... you could get lucky and roll a bunch of 18s or not. Modern games assume the game starts after you create your character. I think that's a huge difference.

I kind of like both worlds. Sometimes I'm in the mood to create a blank slate D&D character, ad lib, kill some stuff, and let him earn a personality for himself. Other times I'm in the mood to create a detailed persona with a back story, hindrances, etc... I've been preferring the former recently, but there's definitely room for both in my gaming life.

It's funny you mention the concept of taking drawbacks to get more character build points. I had that same discussion recently with someone. I was actually telling them about the D&D game I ran and we were comparing it to modern games. One of the things I get a kick out of is the simplicity of everyone using d6 for hit dice and everyone doing d6 damage in combat. It doesn't seem like there's much choice there. However, when you look at systems where there are lots of choices and room for optimization... people quickly learn to make the "right" choices and all characters end up equal mechanically after all. Everyone knows which drawbacks to take, which weapons to use, which feats are best, etc... So, why not just break it down to the common denominator? I'm not saying I buy into that 100%, but that was where the aforementioned conversation went.

[Dagger]

By the way, if anyone is interested in continuing the delve into Stonehell Dungeon outside the normal Meetup schedule, let me know.

[d30]

In preparing to play the old system I obtained a number of out of print pdfs from the 70s and it has been an interesting read seeing what parts they chose to expand. In the first supplement they introduced the thief class and the idea of ‘hit points’ with different classes getting different die. Unfortunately, I only have the third edition of Chainmail which was released after the OD&D books so it incorporates more complex hit tables based on type of weapon vs. type of armor. Unfortunately this adds the complication of obsolete weapons. Obsolete weapons of course exist in the world, but no player would ever choose to use one of them which I see as taking a choice away. On the same note, the two-handed sword is better than any other two-handed weapon so you would reasonably eliminate many other choices for the players.

Nobody wants to make an inherently ‘bad’ choice for the sake of having a unique character and the other players will generally frown on your character not participating mathematically to their full potential, so taking the step of eliminating that choice from making any difference numerically seems inherently liberating to me. As a side note; why is the hindrance ‘blind’ always an option? Has anyone in the history of gaming ever taken blind?

In the near future, I am planning on running a game closer to home and after playing the OD&D session, I am tweaking those rules for a more simplified game. I would not say I am expanding on the rules because I am borrowing as many options from Chainmail as I am from the OD&D supplements. Gotta have a thief class. I have a homebrew if the players would like to try something with considerably more character depth and, if they want something in-between, Savage Worlds seems to fit the bill.

I have been gaming for about 15 years. It has been more than five since I acquired the base homebrew system from someone else. Since that time, I have been tweaking the homebrew to create the most realistic system I can while still encouraging role play and trying not to get bogged down in the rules. In that endeavor, I lost sight of how fun it can be to play something really simple now and then.

[Dagger]

In the first supplement they introduced the thief class and the idea of ‘hit points’ with different classes getting different die.

Yes, the big changes were the different hit die types per class, the thief class, the paladin, and varying damage based on weapon type. Monsters also got varying damage. Magic-user spells went up to level 9 rather than 6. Of particular note, the infamous Magic Missile was introduced. The thief in particular was a big shift. Up until that point, it was assumed that anyone could do anything the player described. Once the thief was introduced, you now had a class that could move silently, pick locks, etc... Does that mean everyone else can't anymore? That's an interesting thing to ponder.

In the near future, I am planning on running a game closer to home and after playing the OD&D session, I am tweaking those rules for a more simplified game. I would not say I am expanding on the rules because I am borrowing as many options from Chainmail as I am from the OD&D supplements. Gotta have a thief class.

I'd love to be a player in that game if you'll have me! How far away do you live?

[d30]

That may be the thing. I live in Celebration. I know this is a bit of drive because I drive to the Altamonte game ones a week. Even further for you a bit further north. That is part of my wanting something a little more close to home. There are places that are closer to home, but nothing within a 30 minutes drive of my house. I do have a library with a round table and a couple leaves if needed. Should the game become too loud there is also an apartment above the garage that could also be used to retreat to. It is well set up, but I haven't even nailed down the precise rules I am planning on using at this point so it will be a couple to a few weeks. I am looking into starting my own meetup group in the future, but I am looking for a way to adjust my expenses to pay for it.

[d30]

Also the Magic Missile was so different. It did more damage and you didn't get as many of them, but they actually resembled arrows back then. I also don't really want to worry about a system that goes much beyond 10th level.

One of the parts of Chainmail I really want to bring in is using 2d6 to determine whether something hit or not and apply that to both saving throws and thief abilities. This would mean that while other classes could attempt it, thieves would be far more advanced in the same way magic-users save versus spell better and fighting-men have a higher hit die. The thief exclusive ability would be their backstab bonus. This does treat a skill set like a saving throw which I am not too sure that I want to define a type of skill roll as in other systems, but I am willing to make an exception to define a thief class.

I do have to concede that this takes something away from other classes, but it also allows a character to become very good at something that other characters could only sort of try based on their assumed ability based on their dexterity stat which is also not a prime req of any other class.