My initial ideas were:
1) Take out the skills Perception and Insight.
You tell me where you look and I'll tell you what is there. And you, as a player, need to make up your mind about whether an NPC is lying to you or not. This is the 0E and BD&D way.
2) Take out the skills Bluff, Intimitate and Diplomacy.
You tell me what you say and I'll tell you how the other guy reacts. Again, this is the 0E and BD&D way.
3) Only give 1/10 the usual XP for killing monsters but give 1 XP for every GP found (but none for Magic items).
This is pretty much how it is in BD&D.
4) Be very lenient with made up moves in combat.
Basically, if the player wants to try something, use the page 42 rules but don't worry at all about stepping on the toes of pre-existing powers, feats, etc. Keep things as freeform as possible and reward trying new things. And remember that you don't have to rule the same way twice about a move.
5) make up extra good and bad stuff that happens in combat based on high or low rolls.
Don't shy away from declaring that someone (Player or monster) has been knocked prone by a high-damage attack or declaring that someone has gotten their sword stuck or knocked out of their hands, etc.
6) Stats are rolled 3d6 in order.
The "in order" part is key.
This was inspired by reading the Quick Primer for Old School Gaming.
What else could be done?
EDIT: And one more thing. This is not a thread for discussing whether Old School was good or not. It's about how to achieve an Old School feel for better or for worse.
Multiclass feats are human only, unless taken at first level. (Corrolary: Dwarves, elves, halflings and tieflings may select their powers from the Fighter, Wizard, Rogue and Warlock classes respectively, regardless of primary class.)
3) Only give 1/10 the usual XP for killing monsters but give 1 XP for every GP found (but none for Magic items).
This is pretty much how it is in BD&D.
Something to consider: how would/should this affect treasure parcels?
Something to consider: how would/should this affect treasure parcels?
If you're really going old school, you should do away with the parcel system altogether. Monsters now have minimal treasure on them (and what magical items they have they are likely using), but there are seemingly random spots within each dungeon where gold pieces are piled to the ceiling.
Oh, and the Rogue gets double XP for all found gold.
7) Repeatedly kill your players with basically everything you can at every opportunity. If you think you have the guile, rub it in their faces. Traps, Monsters, more Traps, Rocks backed up with gravity, spheres of annihilation, anything at all!
Because it's fun! Really, it is!
If you're really going old school, you should do away with the parcel system altogether. Monsters now have minimal treasure on them (and what magical items they have they are likely using), but there are seemingly random spots within each dungeon where gold pieces are piled to the ceiling.
One of my favourite things from some of the older editions I've played/read was how monsters had a % chance to have magic items. Say a monster had a 10% chance of three magic items.
I found this hilarious because, statisticlly, you fight all these monsters who have no magic items. Then, all of a sudden, this tenth one coughs up THREE of them when it dies!
Good times.
Oh, and the Rogue gets double XP for all found gold.
Was this from any actual edition? Can't say I know that one.
Was this from any actual edition? Can't say I know that one.
Second Edition Theives got bonus XP based on gold found. OD&D Theives basically gained twice as much as everyone else from treasure (if I'm remembering correctly), since they got the normal bump and then a class-based bonus.
Theives leveled incredibly quickly if you were playing stock dungeon crawl D&D.
Eliminate Dragonborn and call Eladrin High Elves.
Second Edition Theives got bonus XP based on gold found. OD&D Theives basically gained twice as much as everyone else from treasure (if I'm remembering correctly), since they got the normal bump and then a class-based bonus.
Theives leveled incredibly quickly if you were playing stock dungeon crawl D&D.
Hmm, I have OD&D (I assume you mean the boxed ones?), and there is no Theif class in mine. I do have a retroclone thingy of... Basic, I think, called Labrynth Lords, and although it has a Theif, they also don't get a special bonus. Then again, I'm pretty much 100% sure that LL isn't complete.
Hmm, I have OD&D (I assume you mean the boxed ones?), and there is no Theif class in mine. I do have a retroclone thingy of... Basic, I think, called Labrynth Lords, and although it has a Theif, they also don't get a special bonus. Then again, I'm pretty much 100% sure that LL isn't complete.
No Theives? I had to leave my old soft-cover stuff at home when I moved out to Philly, but I'm just sure there were theives in the red book.
If you've got them in front of you and they disagree, though, I'm obviously misremembering.
Bear with me. I'm just kind of thinking out loud, but today I was wondering what would need to be done to D&D 4E to make it have more of an old school feel (I understand that definitions of "old school" vary wildly).
If you're going through all that trouble, why not just play OSRIC? I think 4th is plenty Old school...might just be me.
Bear with me. I'm just kind of thinking out loud, but today I was wondering what would need to be done to D&D 4E to make it have more of an old school feel (I understand that definitions of "old school" vary wildly).
My initial ideas were:1) Take out the skills Perception and Insight.
You tell me where you look and I'll tell you what is there. And you, as a player, need to make up your mind about whether an NPC is lying to you or not. This is the 0E and BD&D way.
This would also mean taking stealth out of the game. If you look at where I am, you see me. Simple, right? Except that now there's no point in Stealth, so who would train in it.2) Take out the skills Bluff, Intimitate and Diplomacy.
You tell me what you say and I'll tell you how the other guy reacts. Again, this is the 0E and BD&D way.
Some people are less socially adjusted (to put it in a nice way) than others. Some don't actually want D&D to be a social game, while others in the same group do. This allows those people who can't (or simply don't want to) come up with something witty or dimplomatical to say just roll the d20, and let it talk for them. Not an ideal solution, but hey, it's there.3) Only give 1/10 the usual XP for killing monsters but give 1 XP for every GP found (but none for Magic items).
This is pretty much how it is in BD&D.
This seriously messes up the level system in 4th. Considering you should get roughly 720GP by the end of level 1, that means you only need, what, say 300 XP to level. That's like, 5 encounters, even with your 1/10th XP reward for killing monsters.4) Be very lenient with made up moves in combat.
Basically, if the player wants to try something, use the page 42 rules but don't worry at all about stepping on the toes of pre-existing powers, feats, etc. Keep things as freeform as possible and reward trying new things. And remember that you don't have to rule the same way twice about a move.
You need to worry about it stepping on the toes of powers and feats that already excist. If you have an encounter power that lets you knock someone prone, and I let someone else do it simply by using p 42, was there much point in you taking that power in the first place? Probably not, no. In the interest of balance, I would say taking pre-existing material into account is the single most important thing to remember when using p.42.5) make up extra good and bad stuff that happens in combat based on high or low rolls.
Don't shy away from declaring that someone (Player or monster) has been knocked prone by a high-damage attack or declaring that someone has gotten their sword stuck or knocked out of their hands, etc.
There are powers that have these effects. If you start adding them just because you rolled 75% of the maximum possible damage on an attack, things start to get broken. What about those effects that let you automatically crit? Do they get counted here? If not, why?
Again, in the interest of balance, this is probably not a good idea.6) Stats are rolled 3d6 in order.
The "in order" part is key.
Meh, whatever makes you happy in your game. Remember though that the sum of your modifiers should be between 6 and 8, and that the DM is advised to adjust them to the average (which is 7) otherwise players will be too powerful, and find things too easy, or too weak, and find things too difficult.
Since you, as the DM, are told to adjust any stat sets that are too low or high, the point of rolling 3d6 and assigning them in order becomes slightly pointless.
Also, there's a reason this generally isn't done anymore.
Was this from any actual edition? Can't say I know that one.
Well, sorta. The Thief (later Rogue) got bonus experience for all gold that he could steal. if he could sneak gold away from the party by pocketing it, he got double xp for it. I could look up page numbers if you want.
So yeah, actually, it is.
No Theives? I had to leave my old soft-cover stuff at home when I moved out to Philly, but I'm just sure there were theives in the red book.
If you've got them in front of you and they disagree, though, I'm obviously misremembering.
I think they are talking the White Box. With Fighting Men, Wizards, and Clerics only.
I mean, I suppose if we define old school, we have got to start off by deciding where old school is.
Traps deal 4x their listed damage and can only be found by someone whose primary class is Rogue.
Multiclass feats are human only, unless taken at first level. (Corrolary: Dwarves, elves, halflings and tieflings may select their powers from the Fighter, Wizard, Rogue and Warlock classes respectively, regardless of primary class.)
Thieves weren't the only ones who could find traps.
Thieves were just the only ones who had a roll for it.
Anyone could poke around with a ten-foot pole, look around for trip-wires, check the underside of doorknobs for needles, etc.
This would also mean taking stealth out of the game. If you look at where I am, you see me. Simple, right? Except that now there's no point in Stealth, so who would train in it.
It doesn't need to be an opposed roll. In BD&D, Move Silently and Hide in Shadows weren't opposed rolls.
Some people are less socially adjusted (to put it in a nice way) than others. Some don't actually want D&D to be a social game, while others in the same group do. This allows those people who can't (or simply don't want to) come up with something witty or dimplomatical to say just roll the d20, and let it talk for them. Not an ideal solution, but hey, it's there.
This is a part of the "player skill vs. character abilities" thing that the Old School Primer on Gaming was talking about. Whether it is good or bad is beside the point. Doing it this way would be more "old school" (i.e. that's the way it was done before).
This seriously messes up the level system in 4th. Considering you should get roughly 720GP by the end of level 1, that means you only need, what, say 300 XP to level. That's like, 5 encounters, even with your 1/10th XP reward for killing monsters.
In Old School style gaming, there is no such thing as "you should get".
You need to worry about it stepping on the toes of powers and feats that already excist. If you have an encounter power that lets you knock someone prone, and I let someone else do it simply by using p 42, was there much point in you taking that power in the first place? Probably not, no. In the interest of balance, I would say taking pre-existing material into account is the single most important thing to remember when using p.42.
There are powers that have these effects. If you start adding them just because you rolled 75% of the maximum possible damage on an attack, things start to get broken. What about those effects that let you automatically crit? Do they get counted here? If not, why?
Again, in the interest of balance, this is probably not a good idea.
Meh, whatever makes you happy in your game. Remember though that the sum of your modifiers should be between 6 and 8, and that the DM is advised to adjust them to the average (which is 7) otherwise players will be too powerful, and find things too easy, or too weak, and find things too difficult.
I understand what you are saying, but these are all very "modern" ways of looking at it. The point of the thread is to create that old school feeling. What you're saying doesn't create it.
Since you, as the DM, are told to adjust any stat sets that are too low or high, the point of rolling 3d6 and assigning them in order becomes slightly pointless.
If you're trying to do old-school you wouldn't go by rules like that.
This is a part of the "player skill vs. character abilities" thing that the Old School Primer on Gaming was talking about. Whether it is good or bad is beside the point. Doing it this way would be more "old school" (i.e. that's the way it was done before).
In Old School style gaming, there is no such thing as "you should get".
I understand what you are saying, but these are all very "modern" ways of looking at it. The point of the thread is to create that old school feeling. What you're saying doesn't create it.
If you're trying to do old-school you wouldn't go by rules like that.
All if this is well and good, but it sounds like you are coming at this with two conflicting viewpoints:
1. Old-school gaming was all about the Godlike GM screwing over the Foolish PCs and telling them exactly what happens, and giving them little or no reward for their actions.
Which conflicts with:
2. You want rules and guidelines to make 4e, a system which was designed specifically to do away with a lot of the attitudes and systems mentioned above, more like the way it used to be.
You can get the Old-School feel by playing the old systems. Lots of people do. I think trying to make 4e feel like 2nd is just going to lead to frustration from everyone involved, PC and GM alike.
1. Old-school gaming was all about the Godlike GM screwing over the Foolish PCs and telling them exactly what happens, and giving them little or no reward for their actions.
For the record, this is very much not what I think "old school" is about. Although I know that there are many people who do see it as a buzzword for that style of DMing. Everyone has their own definition of what "old school" is.
You can get the Old-School feel by playing the old systems. Lots of people do. I think trying to make 4e feel like 2nd is just going to lead to frustration from everyone involved, PC and GM alike.
I'm not thinking about 2E but rather 0E (white box/brown box) and BD&D (red box/blue box).
This whole thing is just a though experiment anyway, but if there were frustration, I think it would only be from differing expectations. If everyone were on the same page, there would be no problems. But that could be said about anything really.
It doesn't need to be an opposed roll. In BD&D, Move Silently and Hide in Shadows weren't opposed rolls.
Then it would involve a complete rewrite of the Stealth rules. I guess it's doable, but since someone can undo your +18 stealth roll by saying "I look at the tree", it seems a little silly to train in it at all.
This is a part of the "player skill vs. character abilities" thing that the Old School Primer on Gaming was talking about. Whether it is good or bad is beside the point. Doing it this way would be more "old school" (i.e. that's the way it was done before).
These rolls also allow people whose abilities are not up to that of their character (you are not likely to be a charasmatic as a character with Cha 25) still play out their little roleplay session, and be rewarded for it.
Also, this makes scaling challenges a lot harder to do, and considering the Skill Challenge system in 4th edition. Well, let's just say it would need a rewrite. It needs a rewrite anyway...
In Old School style gaming, there is no such thing as "you should get".
Except with 4th edition, wealth is tied to how many magical items you can afford. Since a level 1 magic item costs 300 GP (I think) then giving level 1 characters 1000GP in that level gives them 1 more item than they should have.
I understand what you are saying, but these are all very "modern" ways of looking at it. The point of the thread is to create that old school feeling. What you're saying doesn't create it.
Balance is not a modern idea. In a system built around balance, one can not simply brush it aside, and expect it to not have effects later on. I guess if you let everyone do crazy stuff, including the monsters, balance could be maintained, but it would require everyone to be on board and everyone to attempt it.
If you're trying to do old-school you wouldn't go by rules like that.
4th edition is set up to deal with characters of a certain power level. If they don't have the proper stat sets, they're either too strong, or too weak, and will crush, or be crushed, by any encounters you throw at them of their level, or their level + 1. Obviouslty, the reaction here is simply to increase the level of the monsters they're fighting, but then they level quicker.
Also, it seriously cripples the charisma stat, and many characters who rely on it.
If someone roleplays
At any rate, people are starting to express their opinions about whether Old School is good or not and that is not the point of the thread (re-read the OP). The only thing that lies that way is an edition war and a lock.
And comments like:
A: How can I [ -insert idea-]?
B: You shouldn't want to do that.
...amount to little more than a thread crap.
I just woke up, so please pardon me if my post is a bit cranky.
Right?
I'm assumign you know this because of your screen name.
You do realize that it's not possible to change one edition to the 'feel' of another without comparing them right?
Right?
I'm assumign you know this because of your screen name.
What I was wondering about (and the point of the thread) was what would need to be changed to achieve tht feel of old school for better or for worse.
I never commented that old school was better (seriously, I choose my words carefully so as not to show opinion about good or bad). That's the kind of comparing that turns into an edition war. Comparing to find out what needs to change to emulate it without judging whether that is a good or bad thing is different, I feel.
What I was wondering about (and the point of the thread) was what would need to be changed to achieve tht feel of old school for better or for worse.
The dynamic. You would have to change the dynamic.
You're looking for a mechanical difference, which isn't going to get you far. All you would have to do is push all the power into the DM's hands and switch to reactive gaming. That means not letting your players choose their own destiny and have their characters evolve emotionally. It means throwing the players into a dungeon that doesn't need to make sense. It just has to inspire fear in your players as they will because weary and cautious of everything they see.
Attempt to kill them at every turn and make dying incredibly easy. That wouldn't require any mechanical changes because often times there wasn't even a roll to see if you lived. It was a, "Oh, you touched that? You just got sucked into a plane of pure feminism for all eternity. Roll a new character."
Lots of character rerolling. It doesn't need to have a terrible connotation because the game revolves less around characters and more about dungeons with blue doors and magical mounds of gold that eat you when you try to collect it. When that's the attitude, losing a character doesn't matter so much. You're just there to enjoy the game and defeat the dungeon.
You either don't care, or you have a romanticized view where the game was all about danger and matching wits with the DM OR you have a cynical view where it was Nintendo Hard and depending on an arbitrary and obstinate DM.
Only the last two are going to participate in this thread and so you're going to get responses colored that way. And when people see other people's changes, they're going to respond. It's just how it goes.
Honestly, you're not going to get completely objective responses on this.
You either don't care, or you have a romanticized view where the game was all about danger and matching wits with the DM OR you have a cynical view where it was Nintendo Hard and depending on an arbitrary and obstinate DM.
Only the last two are going to participate in this thread and so you're going to get responses colored that way. And when people see other people's changes, they're going to respond. It's just how it goes.
I think you're exactly right on all these points.
For the record, the definition I, personally, was using for Old School is what is described in the Primer for Old School Gaming linked in the OP. And it doesn't mention anything about the DM killing the PCs frequently, so it wasn't part of my image of Old School.
I find it interesting that some people feel that 4E already has an Old School feel while others feel that doing Old School in 4E would be impossible.
The reason that some of us think 4E feels "old school" is because playing it feels like it used to, back in the rose-colored past. 4E feels like a homecoming, even though it's very different than previous editions. I get a sense of wonder and excitement from it that I haven't had since I started with 2E, not because of any sort of mechanical similarities but because it conjures those types of images in my minds eye and gives me the same feelings of discovery and adventure I had back then. I'm sure a lot of others feel the same way.
"Old School" is almost impossible to quantify, and usually not worth the effort if you can actually pull it off. 4E gives me the good parts of those old feelings, though, which is why I play it.
Or that's how I heard that it worked in one of the earlier edition. I cannot be sure as I haven't read anything before 2nd.
Well, now 4e is here and it isn't the same as the old D&D, but it has the FEEL of being like it for some reason, the more I get into it, the more I feel like WOTC pulled it off.
D.
All if this is well and good, but it sounds like you are coming at this with two conflicting viewpoints:
1. Old-school gaming was all about the Godlike GM screwing over the Foolish PCs and telling them exactly what happens, and giving them little or no reward for their actions.
Which conflicts with:
2. You want rules and guidelines to make 4e, a system which was designed specifically to do away with a lot of the attitudes and systems mentioned above, more like the way it used to be.
You can get the Old-School feel by playing the old systems. Lots of people do. I think trying to make 4e feel like 2nd is just going to lead to frustration from everyone involved, PC and GM alike.
You actually have no clue what old DnD is. I have played for 30 years and so has most of our gaming group. And outside of our immature younger days where we were adolescent idiots (no offense to other adolescents out there, but I was an iditot at that age!!!), we never... ever... experienced the bone grinding, excruciating play that you are describing above.
Some people are just clueless about what DnD is really about and has been about over the years.
If you have to translate the editions of DnD to cartoons...
OD&D & 1st Edition DnD = Tom and Jerry (DM and players go back and forth struggling to entertain themselves but still are friends)
through
4e DnD = Smurfs. Where everyone is equal, DM's and Players love each other. Very warm and fuzzy edition.
Personally, I like T&J more than the Smurfs.
You actually have no clue what old DnD is. I have played for 30 years and so has most of our gaming group. And outside of our immature younger days where we were adolescent idiots (no offense to other adolescents out there, but I was an iditot at that age!!!), we never... ever... experienced the bone grinding, excruciating play that you are describing above.
Some people are just clueless about what DnD is really about and has been about over the years.
If you have to translate the editions of DnD to cartoons...
OD&D & 1st Edition DnD = Tom and Jerry (DM and players go back and forth struggling to entertain themselves but still are friends)
through
4e DnD = Smurfs. Where everyone is equal, DM's and Players love each other. Very warm and fuzzy edition.
Personally, I like T&J more than the Smurfs.
This is the kind of stuff that will turn the thread into a fight.
Hamakto, could you instead tell me what you think would need to be changed to go from "Smurfs" to "Tom & Jerry" in 4E instead of just stating that you like one over the other.
This is the kind of stuff that will turn the thread into a fight.
I'm pretty sure that was the goal.
Give half the players a green lantern ring. Give the rest point sticks. Then break the sticks.
Or make everyone the same - same gold, same gear, same powers (different colors) and same level of progression for their effort.
Then again, if you want a bit of old-school feel without mangling the 4e system too much, these house rules might do the trick. Stats are rolled, there's no criticals, and anyone who drops to 0hp is dead.
T&J vs Smurfs. This is an oversimplification. I look at it more like Ghostbusters (original) vs the Littles.
I will say it again, using wealth as a balancing mechanic is a very bad idea. This needs addressed in the 4.5 revision.
3rd edition has always been a min/max power gamer heaven, and sometimes it discourages others who have less than stellar numbers with a particular character. I think the changing of Non-weapon proficiencies into skills and sometimes feats was somewhat of a clunky change, and seemed to be the one thing that frustrated some, with the added skills with different books and having the Stealth set being spread out so much. The new edition didn't do much better, porting over the theatric SaGa trained vs forgotten shtick.
Old Skool, as gaming is concerned, will never be accepted within a newer edition. I think that if anyone wants to kick it old skool, than they should play 2nd edition with some house rules to adopt some of the 3rd edition combat rules. I wouldn't doubt that some have been doing this already.
The new edition shouldn't be changed to flavor aspects of the past, though, and if it is not your cup of tea, I suggest another system altogether. (Not Pathfinder, but maybe FantasyHero or even *shudder* RiFTs)
That said, old-school D&D would be a dungeon crawl. Character development would be something done on the side of the adventure... no social encounters or the like, but rather interacting with the DM and telling him the background you wish your character to have. Combat will be the focus... after all, old-school D&D didn't just invent the dungeon crawl, it IS the dungeon crawl.
To that vein, plot isn't as necessary as play is. Old-school scenarios had plots that were only thick enough to help you understand the dungeon you were traversing, and gameplay that stretched for miles. Encounters should be a mixture of traps, puzzles (part of which should involve clues players will get from rumors in town) and monsters. Gold should be plentiful, but magic items less so (not too rare).
Finally, I would recommend downplaying most skills. Perception can be used to listen on the other side of doors, thievery for picking locks and such, athletics for climbing... but most everything else should be dictated. Perception is based on how the DM describes the room as players ask about it... a perceptive character is going to ask about every inch ("a chair you say? I look at the underside of the chair... what do I see?"). Social encounters are conversations between player and DM. Traps might require a check, but puzzles require you to figure them out yourself.
Old-school D&D put a lot of weight on the narrative skill of the DM, which is why it's largely gone by the wayside since about the end of 1st Edition. Modern D&D is most notably different for taking the load off from his shoulders, but any DM who wants to take that challenge has every right to do so.
That's old-school.
I can't believe no one mentioned this! As per the old Rules Cyclopedia, have the races BE classes. Honestly for ease I would turn classes into races as follows:
Tiefling (as Warlock)
Dragonborn (as Paladin)
Dwarf (as Warlord)
Elf (as Ranger)
Hobbit (as Rogue)
Half-Elf (as Ranger)*
Eladrin (as Ranger)*
*For the last two you might want to tweak things so there are some differences between an elf, a half-elf, and an eladrin--or not! DM's perogative! Or you might just omit the last two entirely.
And the Human options:
Fighter
Wizard
Cleric
Rename the Saves
Paralysation / Poison / Death Magic (Fortitude)
Rods / Staffs / Wands (Reflex)
Petrification / Polymorph (Will)
Statistic Tables
When you make characters, you should also have a table for each stat written up with special high-stat exclusive daily powers given for stats above 16. Some examples could be that with a 17 in Strength you might be able to Bend Bars as a daily power. With a 16 in Dexterity you might be able to get a -2 (a good thing) to AC versus missile weapons for an encounter.
If you roll an 18 for Strength you then roll percentile dice and list that number next to the score, separated by a slash (ie. STR: 18/36.) If you roll under this number on percentile dice after using the strength based daily power, that power recharges.
Inverted AC (Called THAC0)
I'd also take the AC's of armor and flip them so the weakest armor gives you an AC of 9 and so on down to plate mail which would give you an AC of 0--then magic and shields could push you into the negatives, which is good.
Pre-Adventuring Career Table
Have characters roll a d100 to pick what career they were before they were an adventurer with story rewards of being able to do neat things like make and repair (or evaluate the worth of) armor and weapons if they roll Armorer or the ability to celestially navigate, sail, swim and chart headings if they roll Navigator.
Heh. The more I think about it, a game like this would be a blast! (Sorry if I'm violating my neutral POV by blurting that out--but thanks for starting this thread, man! It's awesome.)
EDIT- Oh! I found that old d100 occupation chart by the way, just for kicks:
01-02 Armorer
03-04 Bowyer/Fletcher
05-10 Farmer
11-14 Fisher
15-20 Forester
21-23 Gambler
24-27 Groom (Animal Handling/Husbandry)
28-32 Hunter
33-34 Jeweler
35-37 Leather Worker
38-39 Limner/Painter
40-42 Mason
43-44 Miner
45-46 Navigator
47-49 Sailor
50-51 Shipwright
52-54 Tailor/Weaver
55-57 Teamster/Freighter
58-60 Trader/Barterer
61-64 Trapper/Furrier
65-67 Weaponsmith
69-71 Woodworker/Carpenter
72-85 No Skill Of Measurable Worth
86-00 Two Skills Rolled On This Table
I can't believe no one mentioned this!
As per the old Rules Cyclopedia, have the races BE classes.
In the May 1986 edition of Dragon magazine they released well-defined, codified rules for how to create new classes for the BECMI box sets (of which RC is a compiled re-release).
Ever since then there have been rules for how to play Elven Clerics, Dwarven Magic-users, etc. in BD&D, so that particular restriction doesn't feel so Old School to me personally. You could even make a Dragonborn Paladin with the rules if you wanted, and since they were in Dragon magazine they are "official". :D
Rolling randoming for your backgroud, however, (although I think you were being sarcastic) actually sounds like a really good idea to me.
It's like Warhammer careers.On a sidenote, I was surprised to see so many people mention 2E when the topic of Old School came up. I'm not, in any way, saying that 2E wasn't Old School but it wasn't even on my radar when I started thinking about the concept of Old School.
Rolling randoming for your backgroud, however, (although I think you were being sarcastic) actually sounds like a really good idea to me.
No! Not at all. I really am serious. I think a 4e game with rules and reflavorings to feel like an old edition game would be a ton of fun. I especially like renaming the saves. It would be really quick and easy and everything would work exactly the same way mechanically--it'd just have a wonderful vintage flavor.
You have no idea how delighted I was both to get a copy of the Cyclopedia and to find the race based classes in there. I really love that.
I've often missed both the starting career and Non-Weapon-Proficiency lists since they seemed so packed with roleplaying flavor, which though 3.0's skills were much appreciated, and far more useful on a game to game basis, really lacked a lot of the character-defining power of the old system...
Erhem. Uhh....That's not to say that the old game is good or bad...uh. Go about your business.
I am not the grognard you are looking for.
On a sidenote, I was surprised to see so many people mention 2E when the topic of Old School came up. I'm not, in any way, saying that 2E wasn't Old School but it wasn't even on my radar when I started thinking about the concept of Old School.
Well, the previous edition (called 3.5) is not old school though. It is an overhaul of the edition before it, and became a free for all with the multiclassing crutch that made single classes boring.
When a veteran DnDer thinks of Old Skool, it is of the TsR days and the glory of surviving the killer dungeon. Mostly this is, to me, the time that saw the release of 2nd edition while 1st edition AD&D was still being produced, the gray area between editions and the confusion of what actually changed between them instead of added on.
There are some ancient ones that think 1st edition is old skool, but that is simply trying to keep ahold of an edition that was long overdue for an overhaul. One of T$R's failings was that the split between the 1st and 2nd edition was never really a clear cut split as the later edition are. (2nd to 3rd, 3rd to 4th)
When a veteran DnDer thinks of Old Skool, it is of the TsR days and the glory of surviving the killer dungeon. Mostly this is, to me, the time that saw the release of 2nd edition while 1st edition AD&D was still being produced, the gray area between editions and the confusion of what actually changed between them instead of added on.
I, as well, am a veteran D&Der and when I think of "Old School" the first thing I think of are Box sets. Brown box, White box, Red box, Blue box.
There are some ancient ones that think 1st edition is old skool, but that is simply trying to keep ahold of an edition that was long overdue for an overhaul.
I honestly don't get what you're trying to say here. I agree that 1E needed an overhaul but how does it needing an overhaul disqualify it from being Old School?
I honestly don't get what you're trying to say here. I agree that 1E needed an overhaul but how does it needing an overhaul disqualify it from being Old School?
No, I simply think that 1st edition is unplayable compared to what has come since then. The rules were so unbalanced and quite frankly had some double meanings within them that frustrated many a dm. 2nd edition did more to revise those rules than it did being a replacement for them. Right up until T$R began to hemredge books like so much bad blood being spilled, most had a mix of the two that they worked from.
Sorry if I wasn't clear.
http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/243989-megadungeon-sandbox-d-d-4th-edition-2.html
Some things I think worth noting:
Challenge level by location - go deeper in the dungeon the monsters get more powerful. Your character level makes no difference.
I used to think this was stupid - why are the monsters on level 2 harder than those near the surface. Then I thought - why is it when the 20th level characters go for a walk in the woods they happen to run into dragons...
Also if your characters are overpowered you can just head off to the tougher areas with richer pickings (unless you enjoy bullying kobolds).
You can't buy magic items - so wealth per level is less of an issue.
Harder to regain HP.
Ability scores had less of an effect pre-AD&D (ie OD&D). -1 for bad stats, +1 for nothing.
This site is also cool: www.philotomy.com for saying how and why things are the way they are in OD&D (and has some house rules).
There's no reason old school has to hate new school and vice versa: Mike Mearls plays OD&D for crying out loud.
In the old editions, everyone was trying to climb up the wall, "hide-in-shadows" above the doorway, and stab anybody in the head that entered under them. We also had random rooms piled to the ceiling with coins. Some classes (which were also races) were more powerful than others, but they required more XP to level up (like the elf vs the thief). We also didn't differentiate editions much, either because they were so similar, so we used what rules we felt like in the same game. I even ran 2e with 3e saves at one point just fine (forgot how; maybe everything was DC 15).
The most important part of old D&D to me was quick character creation and getting most of our XP from treasure or things other than battle.
I'd try to:
- use the 4e roll method for stats.
- give 1 XP for every 1 GP worth of treasure you bring home from the dungeon (not counting magic items) OR allowing players to buy XP when they get to civilization on a 1gp-for-1xp basis (they'll need to keep some to buy supplies).
This may make players act greedy but feel richer. - give 1 XP for every 1 HP a character allowed someone to heal though use of their powers (not Second Wind or items).
This may make players mind the condition of their characters more. - give XP for every spell found while adventuring (XP = encounter of spell's level).
This may make players explore more. - take out feats entirely. Everyone can use Ritual Caster/Alchemy. Anyone can take non-will powers from another class instead of one's own class up to 7 times (generally this may happen at first level and once every five levels (5, 10, 15,...).
Players can't spread out too much without having good stats everywhere, and roleplayers can make characters that don't stick to the basic archetypes. - I've always disliked level/ability drain, multiclass restrictions, & dying at 0 hp, so I'll keep those out.
Tada! Tho' that's my taste. Mind you: dropping feats and everybody Ritual Casting are the only old-edition things about my rules; I'm going after the FEEL I want; not the exact rules. I don't care if they level up faster; I can just make the dungeons deadlier to compensate so strategy & prudence comes before strength when deciding a battle (or if there is a battle).
I might be trolling here, but I think there's a reason that new editions come out beyond just turning a dollar.
I have several theories, but the top of the list has to do with Hasbro being the owner of Wizards, and the foot coming down for a jump start on the brand name and the elimination of the OGL.
3.5 still had life to it, and could have lasted at least four more years, plenty of time for DDi to get straightened out, some of the wacked out rules to be changed in the next edition's beta (like the awful magical item use rule or the wealth limits as a balancing factor)
It isn't a secret, they jumped the gun, and now DDi is still not fully realized and still overpriced, Magical Items are junk that isn't worth making, and some classes/races have been pushed back to use like carrots to make the purchase of future products seem like a requirement.
I like the new rules, it has addressed most of the flaws/sacred cows that the previous edition could not get away from. Vancian casting, endless multiclassing, Redundant skills (though this edition's skill system is far from perfect), and bogged down combat rules.
Just imagine what could have been done to perfect this rule set if it had not been rushed to market.
I might be trolling here, but I think there's a reason that new editions come out beyond just turning a dollar.
Yes, but there's also a reason all the retro-games came out (OSRIC for AD&D 1E and Swords and Wizardry for OD&D).
It's not like new software editions, it's more like music. If someone prefere's 60's or 70's music to modern music than that's there choice. I listen to both.
On the other hand I wouldn't use Photoshop 1.0 when I can use CS4 or even Gimp if I can't afford Photoshop.
First night we had a TPK and in 10 minutes the entire group was ready to go with new characters. We only had one packet of charts printed out that we were all sharing, and we'd never touched this version of the game before, and it still only took us 10 minutes.
I think that's a big part of "Old School" feel: Get right to the action, even if it's not quite balanced.
One topic of interest is how old-school DMs are viewed.
I remember the "Killer DMs" of old. It was quit common at that time for new DMs to play as an adversary. Its not a bad thing, as it helps the DM and the players to develop their gaming skills. That healthy sense of paranoia which comes with playing with such a deadly DM is good for player development, as the players keep on their toes, and find cleaver ways of dealing with things that cant be dealt with in an all out attack. Usually DMs grow out of that style of gaming as they learn more about the game.
[/off topic]
I like your ideas you have posted. Perception and Insight skills are not bad things as such tasks are a major uncertainty. Its much like how Thieves have that Listening at Doors ability. I do agree with #2, as a skill system is a poor substitute for good role-playing. I totally agree with #4 & 5!
One thing to consider with the monsters is what a Grognard call Gygaxian Naturalism.
Remove the healing surges. You can also knock down the hit points to keep thing gritty. Also allow players to recruit retainers so you can better dish out more mooks or have the players deal with mooks without the 1hp rule (I never liked such nerfed NPC rules, as it makes the heroes look like a bunch of p***ies!).
Decorate the dungeon in any way you wish - don't fret over encounter/reward balance. Dont be afraid to dish out powerful monsters and death traps - the players would get a lot of personal experience if you challenge them (being at the core of Player vs. Character Experience).
If the players are collecting a LOT of money because you rule that they cant spend it on new magical items, then have them spend it on their wild lifestyle! After all, when adventures bust their asses, risking life and limb for a sh!t load of gold, it only natural for them to spread the wealth and help stimulate the economy (but mostly at the taverns and brothels ;)). I know its not a real OD&D rule, but you know that old saying: "You work hard, you play hard!"
I hope that this was helpful?
Lokathor: B/X is Basic and Expert D&D for levels 1-3 and 4-15 (respectively).
By the way, if you guys want to play old-school D&D with a 3e feel, then download Basic Fantasy RPG, or get Castles and Crusades. The SIEGE Engine of C&C might be right up your ally.
If you use 4E rules then strip them down to the bare essentials, speed up character creation so it's less of a bugger if your character dies. Maybe you could have a random spread acceptable for 4E - say 6 different attribute spreads and you roll 1D6 to see which your character will use.
On another note, to distinguish the different "old-schools" I'd say:
OD&D to early 1E - "sandbox simulation" your wander round choosing what to do in a DM created environment.
The character is you - you think, "What would I do if I was a dwarf/could cast spells and was in a dungeon?" (A lot like roleplaying used in language learning and business training)
Even alignment/Paladin restrictions follow this paradigm - what would I do if had no-moral code? Or what would I do if I followed medieval chivalry? For most classes Alignment was just something applied
post Dragonlance 1E to 2E - DM tells "epic story" (usually some ancient evil is going to take over the world or blah blah blah" Players follow the story with some leeway (the DM tries to avoid railroading on one level, but on another it's encouraged)
The character is a separate personnae - "What would Sir Harold III/ Mariot the Magnificient do?" Closer to acting. You get penalised by the DM for failing in this (this is what Vaal complained of in an earlier post)
Enlightened, I am curious; do you want to enhance the old school feel or do you just want 4e to be more old school?
For example:
This is a part of the "player skill vs. character abilities" thing that the Old School Primer on Gaming was talking about. Whether it is good or bad is beside the point. Doing it this way would be more "old school" (i.e. that's the way it was done before).
I think there you are confusing "old school" for "old school feel." Player vs Character skill is oldschool, true enough. But it was a frustrating part of old school. By incorperating it again, you are bringing back the old school feel of annoyance, not the old school feel of old school. Though if you want really old school, throw out the social stuff all together.
For your comments on "be lenient in combat" and "make up extra good and bad stuff in combat" ... actually, that would be new school. GMs that act like the players are stars in an action movie is a newer concept than anything else.
I, as well, am a veteran D&Der and when I think of "Old School" the first thing I think of are Box sets. Brown box, White box, Red box, Blue box.
Wow, brown box IS old school. Wasn't that the original printing, sold at GenCon, 1974? Course, 2nd and 3rd edition Chainmail had fantasy setting supplements, so that could be considered even older-school.
I'm slightly surprised no one's mentioned level caps. Sure, lvl 20 has been the cap for a while... unless you weren't human. Dwarf Clerics could only get to lvl 10, if I recall correctly.
Enlightened, I am curious; do you want to enhance the old school feel or do you just want 4e to be more old school?
I had just read the Quick Primer for Old School Gaming (link in the OP) and I was wondering what would need to be dropped or added to 4E to play in the same way.
I think there you are confusing "old school" for "old school feel." Player vs Character skill is oldschool, true enough. But it was a frustrating part of old school. By incorperating it again, you are bringing back the old school feel of annoyance, not the old school feel of old school.
It being frustrating is an opinion, though. Not everyone feels that way.
Though if you want really old school, throw out the social stuff all together.
If by "throw out all the social stuff all together" you mean throw out all the rules about social interaction then I agree that that is one thing that needs to be done to create the Old School feel. Don't roll for any social interaction, just actually say what your character is saying and the DM will tell you what the other guy does.
For your comments on "be lenient in combat" and "make up extra good and bad stuff in combat" ... actually, that would be new school. GMs that act like the players are stars in an action movie is a newer concept than anything else.
I think the combat systems in most modern RPGs are more codified than earlier games. The general trend (for better or worse) is to have all the bases covered so that it's easy for the DM to know how something should go down.
And my general impression is that many modern players aren't as comfortable with the DM making stuff up on the fly. How would a modern player react if, after rolling low, the DM said, "Your sword gets stuck in his shield. Make a STR check to yank it out." or, after an enemy rolls low, saying "His sword gets stuck in your shield and he can't yank it out." etc?
I'm slightly surprised no one's mentioned level caps. Sure, lvl 20 has been the cap for a while... unless you weren't human. Dwarf Clerics could only get to lvl 10, if I recall correctly.
In Basic D&D, humans had a level cap of 36 (and demihumans had lower level caps), although there were rules for becoming a deity beyond that and they had their own version of levels.
In 1E, humans had no level cap whatsoever unless you were a Druid (14), Assassin (14) or Monk (17) (but demihumans did). Unearthed Arcana changed these around a bit, though.
In 2E, humans had no level cap whatsoever unless you were a Druid (20) (but demihumans did). 2.5 may have had them, however. I don't know. I've never actually seen the 2.5 books.
Gold = XP doesn't matter as long as you make up the difference somewhere.
I would say though get your players approval before you impliment these and if that statement raises an eyebrow see my initial impression.
ALL of my players were raised on old school we're all 40 somethings and frankly I don't see any of them going for several of these throwbacks but your players certainly might. In speaking specifically to one of the rules, 3d6 rolled in order = someone is going to be seriously gimped, all of them are going to be forced into specific classes they may not want to play or gimp themselves further by ending up with the 8 strength warrior and you're going to have some serious discrepencies between power levels of the characters. I LIKE random rolls, I think they're fun but in terms of don't screw a player through no fault of their own, point buy or basic stat spread work a lot better. Few players in my experience enjoy playing sub heroic people and people with an average of 11 in their stats are sub heroic.
Not trying to be negative here but this comes off at least if not in actuality as a bit on the power trip side in some ways. The "No you have to guess if I'm lying or not." and the "I just described the room, not my fault if you missed the treasure." I could be way off base there but that's my initial reaction.
Someone here had a quote (more or less) on their sig: "My rogue rolled 42 on his search check. After the poison dart hit the DM said the DC was 43. Boy am I having a good time"
A DM who sucks will suck in old-school, suck in new-school and suck in any version of the game whatsoever.
I would say though get your players approval before you impliment these and if that statement raises an eyebrow see my initial impression.
YEs, I have a feeling it might be easier to get them to play an older-version (or retro-clone) than a modified 4e, but maybe I'm wrong.
In speaking specifically to one of the rules, 3d6 rolled in order = someone is going to be seriously gimped, all of them are going to be forced into specific classes they may not want to play or gimp themselves further by ending up with the 8 strength warrior and you're going to have some serious discrepencies between power levels of the characters. I LIKE random rolls, I think they're fun but in terms of don't screw a player through no fault of their own, point buy or basic stat spread work a lot better. Few players in my experience enjoy playing sub heroic people and people with an average of 11 in their stats are sub heroic.
Yes but in OD&D the biggest bonus/penalty was -1/+1 (this changed in AD&D to what more or less has remained - so ways of rolling dice that gave higher averages became necessary)
You could simply create a table or acceptable 4e stats and have players roll for which they get (so still random but never gimped).
Of the elements from old-school that would convert best to 4e the most likely candidates are the descriptive searches/social interactions and the sandbox feel where the DM creates an interesting environment and the players explore as they wish (setting their own challenge level and creating their own story). Also strip things down so combat and character creation take up less time.
Grimcleaver: in OD&D an Elf was not a class, an Elf could choose whether to act as a fighting man or a magic-user before each adventure.
In speaking specifically to one of the rules, 3d6 rolled in order = someone is going to be seriously gimped, all of them are going to be forced into specific classes they may not want to play or gimp themselves further by ending up with the 8 strength warrior and you're going to have some serious discrepencies between power levels of the characters. I LIKE random rolls, I think they're fun but in terms of don't screw a player through no fault of their own, point buy or basic stat spread work a lot better.
There is a certain kind of fun in making do with what you are given. The Warhammer Fantasy Roleplaying Game was entirely build on this premise. You don't even get to choose your class or race in that game. It's all rolled randomly. If that style of character creation was just objectively not fun for anyone then that kind of game wouldn't even exist.
However, like anything in the world really, not everyone likes it (or can even really understand what could be fun about it). And I have found that no amount of trying to convince someone will make them like the whole "3d6 in order" thing. Either you innately like it or you don't.
If you've never experienced this it's hard to agree with because it's very counter-intuitive but there is a certain kind of fun in not always getting everything that you want.
In my group, there are two people who actively prefer rolling 3d6 in order, one person who doesn't care one way or the other (and we have used roll in order before so he has experienced it) and one person who said that he would like to have the option to use it or not from character to character.
Few players in my experience enjoy playing sub heroic people and people with an average of 11 in their stats are sub heroic.
Everyones idea of fun is different. And everyone's idea of what "heroic" means is different.
Some people who like 3d6 in order enjoy trying to "overcome" bad stats by "playing smart".
Others enjoy the comedic opportunities that come with low stats. (My group falls into this catagory) Although, I would like to add that rolling your stats doesn't automatically mean that you will have low stats.
I guess I should consider myself lucky, but in my group, only one of the four players considers the "fun" of a character to be related to the character's power.
Honestly why bother? Why not just play Basic D&D instead. You can buy the Red Box online for reasonable prices depending on it's quality. In Mint condition it might cost bit but I've seen copies in used boxes at game shops for year. Rough around the edges but still readable. Why not just play that instead and really get that old school feel?
I was never planning on actually using any of this. I said before that it was nothing more than a thought experiment.
I, personally, feel the 'old school feel' is to be avoided, if it's synonymous with a lack of social skills, getting rid of the charisma based skills and insight. That's old school game design, true... and it's bad game design. Mechanically, the characters exist only as combat machines, and all interactions comes down to nothing but GM fiat, with no mechanical decision-making whatsoever. Bad stuff.
Also, it seriously cripples the charisma stat, and many characters who rely on it.
As much as it pains me to say it, i agree with RC. Every time i even think about playing 'old school' D&D, it makes me want to get a new hobby.
Right now I'm running Necromancer Games' Wilderlands as my campaign setting. It doesn't get much more Old School than that. I've got 4E rules for the basics of the game, but I'm using the Wilderlands random tables to determine random encounters and details about the justice system.
What I like about 4E is that it makes gameplay so much smoother. Did I play AD&D when I was a kid? Yes. But did I play it by-the-books? I seriously doubt it. Now that I'm old enough to know that rules can actually add to the fun, I feel like 4E lets me enjoy the best of both worlds. For me, 4E already feels Old School.
Geez does it pay to reply to someone 2 pages back? even i'm confused now.
Mechanically. You can certainly change the rules of 4e to promote a more OD&D feel. Mechanically I would change the following.
1. Remove skills entirely. No need for them.
2. Remove the new races as playable races.
3. Remove Warlock as it really doesn't jell with the good guy mentality of OD&D.
4. Remove the rogue OR convert it to a light fighter but without the find trap style skills. They still have plenty of sneaky combat skills to use. Or make the rogues stealth skills a supernatural ability. So for example anyone can sneak but a rogue moves silently. Anyone can hide but a rouge hides in shadows. I would remove the class for simplicity sake.
5. Double the xp requirement for a level but allow gp spent to equal xp earned.
6. Half the hps of monsters to speed combat up but give normal xp.
7. Return Vancian magic (no idea how to do this).
The key from a mechanics point of view is that the DM is the rulebook and balance isn't relevant and secondary to fun. Dungeons shouldn't be magically filled with "level appropriate" opponents. Stay as rules light as you can.
Organically. The core of OD&D was to challenge the players and not the characters. I think you can still do that in 4e without changing the rules terribly (or at all) while 3e required a lot of rule changing to achieve the same goal. For example in a diplomatic situation I use to get my players to actually act out what they were going to say and that would modify the roll. I wouldn't just let them roll. The other key to classic D&D is to reject the story-driven adventure paths and modules you get these days. There really shouldn't be an overarching story-line set in stone - a loose one sure - but in OD&D the story was created together between players and DM as they went along on the fly. That's why there is a big emphasis on random tables for encounters and minimal background for adventure sites. The goal was more to have lots of shallow options that you used on the fly as opposed to one deep story arc option that players are railroaded into.
My personal choice - both. I haven't played 4e enough to say what rules I would and wouldn't change (except the combat ones to speed it up). But it does have an OD&D feel already. Just try the organic approach - challenge the player not the character, don't write a novel of a story arc build one together on the fly with players, don't worry about balance the DM is the rule-book.
Hope that helps.
I remember when 3rd edition first came out and people were comparing it to 1st. Now 4th edition comes out and people are comparing it to 2nd. By the way, if you're talking about "old" D&D, there was a lot more than the red box, unless you wanted your characters to never progress past level three. There were Basic, Expert, Companion, Master, and Immortal boxes (the BECMI system). Or you can get them all in one place in the Rules Cyclopedia.
Let's see... Things to make it feel like "old skool" D&D:
1) Character races other than human cannot choose character classes. An elf is an elf, and can be nothing else. Same with halflings, dwarves, etc... I suppose include Dragonborn and Eladrin with this since we're trying to make 4E feel like OD&D.
2) Vancian magic is a must. The idea of characters having "at-will" powers simply does not jibe with the old-skool feel. Character were supposed to be weak, need to conserve their resources, and rely on each other to survive. "Balance" was accomplished by having classes that sucked at first, like magic user, become very powerful later on, if you lived that long and the campaign was still going.
3) Old skool D&D was not about the DM arbitrarily killing players with traps and such. Except for Tomb of Horrors - that module was simply evil. For those who never played it, the "default" party in the back of the module started with thirty characters, and you'd be lucky to finish the module with more than six. I think that was "Advanced" D&D though.
4) Random and wandering monsters - another absolute must. I think it was every 30' you moved you had a chance for an encounter. Also one room might have 6 orcs in it, while the next would have an ogre, then 8 kobolds, and finally some gray ooze and green slime ready to drop on you when you thought you finally got to the treasure.
5) Gelatinous Cubes. Nothing keeps a dungeon clean and tidy like Gelatinous Cubes.
6) 10' poles. 'nuff said.
7) Clerics should not receive any spells till level 2 and they have proven themselves to their deities.
8) Slow as molasses healing. Even though a 4 HP wound represents a scratch to a level 8 fighter, it should take just as long to heal as a mortal wound to a commoner or first level character.
I'd like to make this a top ten but I'm running out of ideas.
Ahhh nostalgia.
There were Basic, Expert, Companion, Master, and Immortal boxes (the BECMI system). Or you can get them all in one place in the Rules Cyclopedia.
I think the original poster is going back even further than the red box etc. He is talking about ORIGINAL Dungeons and Dragons - brown/white books from 1974.
"Balance" was accomplished by having classes that sucked at first, like magic user, become very powerful later on, if you lived that long and the campaign was still going.
Not entirely true (though not wrong). Balance was also achieved through the XP system. Each class needed different XP levels to advance. So thieves advanced the fastest and magic-users the slowest.
What I said in my previous post is the real difference thematically between the two new and old. The other way to describe the difference is Batman vs Superman. OD&D all the characters were more like the Batman archetype. They were not super. They were a little bit faster, smarter and luckier than your average human. They used their wealth to equip themselves to the best human civilization good offer and they worked as a team to overcome super-human foes.
4e (and to a lesser extent 3e) uses the Superman archetype for characters. The assumption is the characters are almost a different breed to your average human. They effectively have super-powers.
So it just depends what kind of game you like. In the end its different strokes for different folks.
Some links:
http://www.philotomy.com/#dungeon
http://grognardia.blogspot.com/
I think the original poster is going back even further than the red box etc. He is talking about ORIGINAL Dungeons and Dragons - brown/white books from 1974.
Ahh yes. Before there were dragon dice ;)
I thought I heard the red book mentioned a few times, so I thought I'd clarify that - the red book by itself (or even the red and the blue), did not encompass the whole of the rules - although with the red and blue you were set for a long time of adventuring.
Which brings up another part of old skool D&D - much, much slower levelling curve. When you were level 8 or 9 and got hit by some level draining undead, it sucked, because you knew it would take a couple of months at least to make up what you just lost in that one encounter.