OD&D - The Original Intended Audience & Basic Assumptions - 02 - Follow Up

As a follow up to my previous post I present the following quoted from my forum: These guys are way more articulate that I am:


Mr Darke over on my forum started a new thread:

This is coming off a mention that The Perilous Dreamer and I had in this thread. For those that do not want to read it, we hit on something that had been missed in the standard set of assumptions by OD&D and, by extension, the OD&D clones. This could serve to explain why there can be such a disconnect between players of later editions and the game or the belief that the rules are somehow incomplete or hard to follow. Rather than give a lengthy discussion on this I will start with what I have noticed.

Point 1: Chainmail

It is assumed in the LBBs that the Player/DM will have a copy of Chainmail as well as D&D. While many of us know this it is overlooked to the point that the clones mostly use the alternative combat system. However, Chainmail was a part of the game from the beginning and was later removed. Most of the clones out there did not port this over to their game and I do feel something was lost.

Point 2: Experienced Gamers


D&D was not written for novice gamers. Besides Chainmail, there seems to be an assumption that the players would be gamers of some stripe. For the most part, I feel this would be miniature games but games like those of Avalon Hill could be included. The game was not written for , nor geared to, novice players. While a DM could teach from it, this would take patience on his part especially with non-gamers.

Point 3: Well Read


I thought of splitting this up into two points but one will serve. The assumption here is that those playing would be versed in fantasy and S&S literature as well as history. Notice there are no descriptions of equipment, armor or weapons? I believe that this was an issue of space but also an issue of believing that players would know what the equipment was or would look them up. This would also serve in creating the campaign and adventure.

Point 4: Older Players


With the above we can guess that the target D&D player was much older than what we see now. High School and College age would be the low end of the scale here with the higher end going well into adulthood. This would maximize the above points and their potential. It was not until later that the game was geared to a younger audience and this leads me to believe D&D's target audience was at least 18 to 20 years old.

Point 5: Everything Else was to be Added by the Group


 Older players would have the time, resources, and knowledge to make their own additions to the game. With systems under their belts, a miniature collection and knowing how rules work the idea would be that any additions would be made in group. Yes, the supplements were planned as were articles from Strategic Review and The Dragon. However, this would not trump the assumption that many things would come from in group and would be shared by others.


 Point 6: Times and Culture


  The original game was a product of its time and culture. If you look at what was used for the game and the amount of time a player would have to create there is a disconnect between 1974 and 2015. We have less time to work on leisure, game aids like miniatures are a lot more rare and many of the toys and figures used in those days do not exist anymore.

  There was also little to no gaming consoles, VCRs or DVDs were not around and television only had a few channels. The amount of media we consumed was a lot less and time was more available to work on the hobby. Now we are in a place where every minute of your time is demanded for something and entertainment screams at you from all sides. Its far easier to fire up Final Fantasy than it is to create a campaign and find players.


 The above are just what I have seen and observed as well as things that the clone makers need to take into account. While some of these can be worked on, the final point is one we have to make ourselves.

 I would love to hear how you guys see this.

Another poster jmccann rightly noted the following in regard to Point 6 above:

Point 6: Times and Culture

We have less time to work on leisure, game aids like miniatures are a lot more rare and many of the toys and figures used in those days do not exist anymore.

    jmccann wrote:

I agree with a lot of your points, but I don't think this is correct at all.  By the late 70s, there were many lines of fantasy miniatures as well as historical, but there are many, many more fantasy miniatures available today than during the mid-70s.  A lot of early D&D groups did a lot of conversions. And miniatures are a lot easier to get due to the internet today.

As for toys and figures, yes, a lot from back then are out of production, but I am pretty sure there is way more choice now, and w/ ebay, you can often get older stuff.  So I really dispute this part of post.

And then another poster wrote:


hedgehobbit wrote:

Here are a list of assumptions I've discovered since first looking at early D&D:

Game club-style open table sessions
Whomever shows up (or is invited) that session plays. There isn't a "party" except for whomever is currently at the table. As a result, XP is earned individually and class-v-class balance is much less important. The character's are not assumed to all be the same level.

Role-playing is about the experience and not "the character".
Role-playing is a tool that is used to allow the player to experience, as much as possible while sitting at a table in a basement, what it would be like to actually be a character in a dark dungeon surrounded by monsters. Today, there's the assumption that the player creates a character that has goals, likes/dislikes, and behaviors that are entirely separate and distinct from the player. That wasn't always the case. As a result OD&D doesn't have rules like personality mechanics, social skill, social "combat", etc as those things would distract from the player's ability to experience the world first hand.

The setting takes precedence over everything
The setting is persistent and of supreme importance. Everything else, the rules, the party, the character classes, equipment lists are subservient. The game world isn't generated during a special pre-game session and isn't beholden to character traits like "one unique thing" or "Icons" etc. [None of that would make sense considering the above.]

Encounter balance is about choice, not fair fights
The deeper you go, the harder it gets. Players choose the difficulty level of the campaign by the actions their characters make. The DM isn't responsible to make sure the players always win.

Zero to Hero (if you're lucky)
Because there is no party per se, it's up to each individual to make his or her way up to the top. Achieving name level is a goal and a difficult task. It isn't something that all characters will eventually get to just by showing up. XP is NOT a pacing mechanic.

These three posters I believe have covered the subject thoroughly and completely and much better than I could since I am so close to the subject that I just assume so much of the above is just the way it is and don't generally realize how remarkable it really is.