|
|
Post by Yaleric on Oct 14, 2022 21:29:24 GMT -5
Original Dungeons and Dragons it has been said many times is more of a toolkit than a set of rules. Looking at the 3 Little Brown Books, the four Supplements (Greyhawk, Blackmoor, Eldritch Wizardry, and Gods, Demi-Gods and Heroes), Chainmail, Swords & Spells, Outdoor Survival, The Strategic Review and the early issues of The Dragon - what Classes, Rules and Options would you choose and what are you adamantly opposed to using? What is your canon?
|
|
|
|
Post by hengest on Oct 14, 2022 21:48:56 GMT -5
Original Dungeons and Dragons it has been said many times is more of a toolkit than a set of rules. Looking at the 3 Little Brown Books, the four Supplements (Greyhawk, Blackmoor, Eldritch Wizardry, and Gods, Demi-Gods and Heroes), Chainmail, Swords & Spells, Outdoor Survival, The Strategic Review and the early issues of The Dragon - what Classes, Rules and Options would you choose and what are you adamantly opposed to using? What is your canon? I am not dogmatic about this, and would happily play anything Murkhillian (but not only). But I can say this. I think of FM as the basic class and am most comfortable starting a PC on a solo adventure as an FM. I like to have magic be experienced or discovered along the way. I do not love clerics, and left to my own devices, would simply have FM and MU as classes, plus the possibility of a homebrew class. I would not touch the published gods, but would consider having superhuman immortal types ('gods') figuring somewhere in a campaign world. |
|
|
|
Post by Yaleric on Oct 14, 2022 21:55:12 GMT -5
Original Dungeons and Dragons it has been said many times is more of a toolkit than a set of rules. Looking at the 3 Little Brown Books, the four Supplements (Greyhawk, Blackmoor, Eldritch Wizardry, and Gods, Demi-Gods and Heroes), Chainmail, Swords & Spells, Outdoor Survival, The Strategic Review and the early issues of The Dragon - what Classes, Rules and Options would you choose and what are you adamantly opposed to using? What is your canon? I am not dogmatic about this, and would happily play anything Murkhillian (but not only). But I can say this. I think of FM as the basic class and am most comfortable starting a PC on a solo adventure as an FM. I like to have magic be experienced or discovered along the way. I do not love clerics, and left to my own devices, would simply have FM and MU as classes, plus the possibility of a homebrew class. I would not touch the published gods, but would consider having superhuman immortal types ('gods') figuring somewhere in a campaign world. I've noticed that a lot of people do not like clerics, whereas I love clerics and think they are misunderstood and seldom played well. I am like you that I look at FM as the main class. MU and Clerics are next and then I like Rangers a lot and Paladins a little. I don't like any of the other classes that appear here and there. |
|
|
|
Post by hengest on Oct 14, 2022 21:56:20 GMT -5
I am not dogmatic about this, and would happily play anything Murkhillian (but not only). But I can say this. I think of FM as the basic class and am most comfortable starting a PC on a solo adventure as an FM. I like to have magic be experienced or discovered along the way. I do not love clerics, and left to my own devices, would simply have FM and MU as classes, plus the possibility of a homebrew class. I would not touch the published gods, but would consider having superhuman immortal types ('gods') figuring somewhere in a campaign world. I've noticed that a lot of people do not like clerics, whereas I love clerics and think they are misunderstood and seldom played well. I am like you that I look at FM as the main class. MU and Clerics are next and then I like Rangers a lot and Paladins a little. I don't like any of the other classes that appear here and there. I am more than willing to learn better about Clerics. Honestly I think it is a failure of imagination on my part. Really, it is hard for me to deal with even MUs. |
|
|
|
Post by Yaleric on Oct 14, 2022 21:59:11 GMT -5
I've noticed that a lot of people do not like clerics, whereas I love clerics and think they are misunderstood and seldom played well. I am like you that I look at FM as the main class. MU and Clerics are next and then I like Rangers a lot and Paladins a little. I don't like any of the other classes that appear here and there. I am more than willing to learn better about Clerics. Honestly I think it is a failure of imagination on my part. Really, it is hard for me to deal with even MUs. I feel you there, I never play MUs and it is the toughest part of reffing, running MUs well. I think I run Clerics better than I do MUs, because I have specific expectations about the character and morals of clerics. FM are the easiest to run, I just follow my normal inclinations.  |
|
|
|
Post by hengest on Oct 14, 2022 22:05:58 GMT -5
I am more than willing to learn better about Clerics. Honestly I think it is a failure of imagination on my part. Really, it is hard for me to deal with even MUs. I feel you there, I never play MUs and it is the toughest part of reffing, running MUs well. I think I run Clerics better than I do MUs, because I have specific expectations about the character and morals of clerics. FM are the easiest to run, I just follow my normal inclinations. I probably should not worry about MUs much, just give them the spells and let the player be creative in the world. But somehow I always feel stuck when I think about it. |
|
|
|
Post by Yaleric on Oct 14, 2022 22:29:26 GMT -5
I feel you there, I never play MUs and it is the toughest part of reffing, running MUs well. I think I run Clerics better than I do MUs, because I have specific expectations about the character and morals of clerics. FM are the easiest to run, I just follow my normal inclinations. I probably should not worry about MUs much, just give them the spells and let the player be creative in the world. But somehow I always feel stuck when I think about it. Better than a MU fanatic running the game and nerfing the whole game for the FM. |
|
|
|
Post by JMiskimen on Oct 15, 2022 9:01:28 GMT -5
Just about any class can be integrated into OD&D, and I'm okay with that. IMHO, a referee running a campaign should be prepared to utilize social restraints on any character class that seeks to dominate play. This is not to punish an ambitious player, rather to simulate somewhat realistic reactions of the campaign.
Clerics must contend with their dogma, Order/Church/Circle/Cult hierarchies, followers, and even local governments to some extent. Magic-users deal with instructors at lower levels, who are often connected with Schools/Guilds/Secret Societies, etc.; and at higher levels should deal with those institutions regularly. Thieves Guilds and Gangs tend to regulate Thieves, while Military Orders/Mercenary Companies/Lords and Governments regulate Fighting-Men.
For those renegades who'd rather go it alone, remind them of training costs/time to advance in levels and the importance of allies (because there are always rivals, right, Ref?) and availability of trainers/instructors.
I've found keeping these basic ideas in mind in any campaign, even one more off the top of my head, helps keep things balanced, challenging, yet interesting, immersing, and engaging to the players - no matter what class they are playing. And in particularly good games, the other players do some of the heavy lifting for me, as they have aims of their own that may conflict with one another - which the campaign may also respond to should that conflict of interests escalate to those levels.
Very fun stuff!
|
|
|
|
Post by The Perilous Dreamer on Oct 15, 2022 10:29:53 GMT -5
I don't use training costs/time to advance in levels, I posit that your training is on the job and constantly ongoing and that is how you go up in levels. In the other thread, it mentioned that in 4E and IIRC 5E, WotC has taken the approach that every 10 encounters (because combats can take a whole session to run) that you go up a level, whether it is 1 to 2 or 5 to 6. But bitd when we played for 8 hours or more at a time, sometimes 12 hours, we might go through as many as 20 encounters in one game session and to go from one level to the next level might be as many as 200 encounters or more to accumulate enough experience to make the jump. That is playing with 18 players on average.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Perilous Dreamer on Oct 15, 2022 10:35:27 GMT -5
I usually use Fighting Men, Magic-Users and Clerics. I don't use thieves or the other classes, although I would use Paladins (my favorite class) and Rangers if anyone wanted to play them which is pretty rare. In college, I was the only one out of our large group that ever played a Paladin or a Ranger. Now bitd, we did use Thieves even though I never liked that class, mainly because it does not use old school mechanics and it steps all over the toes of the other classes. We also tried all of the other classes as we learned of them. IMO the class that jumped the shark was the original Strategic Review writeup of the Bard. Bards are, in essence a multi-class character that can do everything.
|
|
|
|
Post by Old Timer on Oct 17, 2022 16:29:03 GMT -5
I prefer just the basic three classes. I hate Druids because these days the people who want to play them or woke tree huggers. Bitd the it was the long-haired hippie guys on drugs that wanted to play them. (Those guys were still around in the 70s and early 80s and although for a long time after that in diminished numbers, they have continued to be around)
|
|
|
|
Post by Keyone1234 on Oct 17, 2022 17:44:56 GMT -5
Very little outside the first three books. Opposed to, most things introduced after 1/1/1977.
|
|
