A Rules Comparison of Older D&D Editions

The following is a comparison of TSR-era D&D editions and/or their derivatives that is mostly intended for my own reference when considering different editions to run, or if I am considering pointing others towards a specific game I would like to run. If anyone reading this blog can point out corrections or additional information, feel free to comment.

Systems Considered:

• S&W (Swords and Wizardry Complete, 2008, an OD&D (1974) Retroclone¹)

• B/X (Dungeons and Dragons Basic/Expert, Moldvay-Cook, 1981, consulting Old-School Essentials for clarifications. Additional references to Rules Cyclopedia)

• AD&D (Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, 1st Ed., 1977, consulting OSRIC for clarifications.)

Characters

Character Classes:

• S&W: Assassin, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Magic-User, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Thief

• B/X: Cleric, Dwarf, Elf, Fighter, Halfling, Magic-User, Thief (See Rules Cyclopedia for Druid and Mystic.)

• AD&D: Assassin (T), Bard (F/T), Cleric, Druid (C), Fighter, Illusionist (M), Magic-User, Monk, Paladin (F), Ranger (F), Thief
  (Note: Parentheses indicate a sub-class. Bard and Monk excluded from OSRIC. Additional classes in Unearthed Arcana, such as Barbarian and Cavalier.)

Character Races:

• S&W: Dwarf, Elf, Half-Elf, Halfling, Human

• B/X: Race as Class.

• AD&D: Dwarf, Elf, Gnome, Half-Elf, Halfling, Half-Orc, Human

Alignment:

• S&W: 3-point Law-Neutral-Chaos

• B/X: 3-point Law-Neutral-Chaos

• AD&D: 9-point Good-Neutral-Evil and Law-Neutral-Chaos

Maximum Level:

• S&W: 20

• B/X: 14 (see Rules Cyclopedia for up to 36)

• AD&D: 20

AD&D Note (Leveling Up):

• Gygax suggests training required at a rate of current level × 1,500gp per week in order to gain levels.

Spell Lists and Max Spell Levels:

• S&W: Cleric (7), Druid (7), Magic-User (9)

• B/X: Cleric (5), Magic-User (6)

• AD&D: Cleric (7), Druid (7), Magic-User (9), Illusionist (7)

Scrolls:

• S&W: Can be transcribed to spellbooks. Must Read Magic for arcane scrolls first.

• B/X: Can only be cast. Must Read Magic for arcane scrolls first.

• AD&D: Can be transcribed to spellbooks. Must Read Magic for arcane scrolls first.

Adventures

Timekeeping:

• S&W: 10-minute Turn, 1-minute Round.

• B/X: 10-Minute Turn, 10-second Round.

• AD&D: 10-Minute Turn, 1-minute Round, 6-second Segments (10/Round)

Movement:

• S&W: Movement rate e.g., 12. (×20 = feet/turn; ×10/3 = feet/round in combat)

• B/X: Base movement (Encounter movement) e.g., 120' (40')

• AD&D: Movement rate e.g., 12". (Conversions: 1":10' per turn of exploration or combat round. 1":1' per combat segment. 1":2 miles per day of travel.)

Encumbrance:

• S&W: Weight measured in pounds. Affects movement only.

• B/X: Weight measured in coins. Affects movement only.

• AD&D: Weight measured in pounds. Affects Surprise and Initiative

Random Encounters:

• S&W: 1-in-6 chance every turn, but suggested as few as every 3 turns. Variable dungeon level. d6×10' distance in dungeon. (×3 to ×10 in wilderness.)

• B/X: 1-in-6 chance every 2 turns. Standard dungeon level. 2d6×10' distance in dungeon.

• AD&D: 1-in-6 chance every 3 turns. Variable dungeon level. d6+4" distance in dungeon. (50' to 100') Base 6d4" distance in wilderness, modified by surprise.

Reaction Rolls:

• S&W: 2d6. Low rolls are hostile.

• B/X: 2d6, modified by Charisma of interacting character. Low rolls are hostile.

• AD&D: d%. Low rolls are hostile.

Combat

Operation Order:

• S&W: 1. Declare spells; 2. Initiative; 3.Movement and Missiles, then losers of initiative; 4. Spells and melee, then losers of initiative.

• B/X: 1. Declare spells and melee movement; 2. Initiative; 3: In order: Movement, Missiles, Spells, Melee. 4: Opposition.

• AD&D: 1. Declare intentions including spells; 2. Initiative; 3: Resolve in initiative order.

Surprise:

• S&W: d6. 1-2 is surprised for one round, but only 1 if Monk or Ranger in party. 1-in-4 chance of dropping a held item if surprised.

• B/X: d6. 1-2 is surprised for one round.

• AD&D: d6. 1-2 is surprised for that many segments. Dexterity modifiers can negate these segments for individual characters.

Initiative:

• S&W: Group d6, highest goes first. Ties are either simultaneous or re-rolled per DM choice.

• B/X: Group d6, highest goes first. Ties are either simultaneous or re-rolled per DM choice.

• AD&D: Group d6, highest goes first. Each side acts on the other die’s segment. Ties are simultaneous. Spells resolve at appropriate segment per casting time.

Move and attack:

• S&W: Can be combined.10' melee range

• B/X: Can be combined. 5' melee range.

• AD&D: No melee until after the round distance is closed, unless charging (×2 move). Defender can set to receive charge.

Back Stab (Thief):

• S&W: +4 to hit from behind for Thieves and Assassins. If also surprised, damage multiplied based on level.

• B/X: +4 to hit if unaware and from behind. Damage doubled.

• AD&D: +2 to hit from behind (or +4 if also with surprise), damage multiplied based on level.

Attacks of Opportunity/Fleeing:

• S&W: Free attack as the character moved out of 10’ melee range, made at +2. Optional.

• B/X: +2 to attack from behind; No automatic attack.

• AD&D: Free attack(s) at +4 (i.e., treat as stunned)

Missile attacks:

• S&W: +0 at short range, -2 at long range.

• B/X: +1 at short range, +0 at medium range, -1 at long range.

• AD&D: +0 at short range, -2 at medium range, -5 at long range.

Firing into Melee:

• S&W: Random.

• B/X: No mention.

• AD&D: Random. Adjust probabilities based on sizes.

Monster Morale:

• S&W: Mentioned in the abstract.

• B/X: 2d6 vs. Monster's score. Equal or lower continues to fight. 2 successes will fight to the death. Optional.

• AD&D: d% roll for resolve; Base 50%, +5/HD >1, +1/extra HP. Additional situational modifiers.

Pursuit:

• S&W: No mention.

• B/X: Monster reaction roll. Success based on movement rate.

• AD&D: d% roll for pursuit chance. Depends on intelligence and situation.

AD&D Note (Spells and Weapon Speed):

• If lost initiative but attacking spellcaster in melee, subtract losing initiative die roll from weapon speed. If the result is less than the casting time, an interrupting hit is possible.

AD&D Note (Simultaneous Melee and Weapon Speed):

• In tied initiative, If the slower weapon has a greater speed factor by either +5 or 2x, the faster weapon gets 2 attacks before slower. If the difference is 10, the faster weapon gets a 3rd attack simultaneously with the slower weapon attack.

AD&D Note (Weapon vs. Armor):

• There is a table for bonuses and penalties to hit based on different armor types. Thus, certain weapons are better for lightly armored foes, and others for heavily armored foes.

As stated before, please feel free to comment below to point out inaccuracies or important omissions. In a future blog post, I hope to compare stat monster block formats found in adventures for various rules systems, as well as looking at how a monster changes across those rules systems as well.

1 - Note that of the three systems compared, I consider Swords and Wizardry to be probably the most removed from its inspirational edition of D&D, so I don't want to simply call it OD&D. (For example, the default option is a single saving throw, as opposed to the 5 different types.) As far as I know, it is an interpretation of the rules comprising Chainmail, the original D&D Box set, all supplemental booklets, and some articles from The Strategic Review. There are also the White Box (Original 3 Booklets) and Core (Same, with Greyhawk supplement) editions of S&W, but I imagine they are mostly stripped-down versions of S&W Complete. In reading the Swords and Wizardry Complete rulebook, however, there are well-presented notes about changes from the original rules.

Neoclassical Geek Revival (NGR): A Review

Today, I would like to review the game system Neoclassical Geek Revival (henceforth NGR) by Zzarchov Kowolski. Now, I don't consider myself a reviewer like Bryce at tenfootpole, and in fact I've only posted one RPG review prior to this one. But I feel compelled to review the game system here, for one primary reason. You see, NGR is the only game I'm playing in now. I'm a player in one of Zzarchov's weekly games, and we use his system.

Zzarchov is primarily known in RPG circles as the author of high-value, innovative adventures. His work for Lamentations of the Flame Princess includes Thulian Echoes, which features a twist in that the players play both a historical party of adventurers as well as a party trying to retrace their steps. Also Scenic Dunnsmouth, an investigative town adventure with a playing-card-based setup mechanism which makes it highly replayable. Dunnsmouth in particular is a perpetual fan favorite that I keep hearing mentioned in discussions of present-day innovation in the old-school gaming space.

Zzarchov also has his own independent adventures available for purchase, two of which I'm running at an upcoming local convention: A Thousand Dead Babies and The Gnomes of Levnec. His independent adventures feature not only interesting public domain artwork on the cover, but also two sets of stat blocks: one for generic OSR games assuming some version of original D&D, and one for NGR. Although I purchased these adventures intending to adapt them to LotFP, the NGR stat blocks referred to mechanics that sounded both intriguing and practical. For example, "counts as consecrated temple on holy ground." As a result of sheer curiosity, I bought the rulebook and read through it briefly before diving in to Zzarchov's weekly game. I've been playing regularly for a few months, so the review will be from this perspective - someone who's tried learning the game solo and then seen the system in practice.

We'll start with the negatives, because you're going to have to deal with them up front. This game can be difficult to wrap your head around, especially if you're the only one coming to it in your gaming group and/or you have a strong familiarity with various versions of D&D. According to Zzarchov, the whole NGR project started out of a series of house rules to TSR-era AD&D 1E/2E. However, there have been so many modifications that the basic structure of the game mechanics feels entirely different—as a matter of fact, the game was once known by the title "Piecemeal." If the game can be classified in any way as "OSR," then it is in flavor and sensibility alone, and not in terms of game mechanics. I will argue later that a lot of these modifications are actually for the better and consistent with my ideal gaming experience when it comes to fantasy-genre roleplaying. But it's a difficult adjustment, particularly if you're like me and don't learn most effectively just by reading the rulebook. If I could offer an analogy, the coming of D&D was the invention of the wheel or maybe a wheelbarrow, but NGR is a complete mountain bike. You get a much more sophisticated machine that has a lot more esoteric parts, but once you learn how to use it you can do amazing and fun things with it.

In short, a lot of the mechanics end up being simple once you know them, but require a lot of explanation to fully illustrate.

Secondly, even after you get through the novelty of the mechanics and everything begins to "click," I find that it is definitely on the "crunchy" side of the spectrum as opposed to "rules light." ("Crunchy" alluding to number-crunching.) This is not a game for those who have burned their 5th Edition D&D books in favor of forever playing games like The Black Hack and Into The Odd. As an example, often times I feels like NGR may be prone to "modifier creep." This is what I'm calling the phenomenon of having to keep track of an increasing number of different situational modifiers (e.g., I'm facing a blunt attack [+2 to my defense roll] and I'm blessed by my priest's god [+1] but my opponent has the high ground [-2] etc., etc.). I don't believe it approaches anything close to Pathfinder, however, which the worst offender in all the games I played; I needed a laptop with HeroLab installed in order to play it effectively and keep track of all the different status effects. 

Some caveats: (1) Certain rules are marked as "basic" while others are more "fiddly." If you're new to the game—or simply don't want to incorporate them—you can ignore the fiddly rules (such as armor "tags") to make the game more streamlined. (2) I should mention that by calling the system "crunchy" I simply am referring to the amount of time spent resolving mechanics rather than what those mechanics relate to. That is, you shouldn't assume that you'll be wasting a lot of time on tedious combat if that's not what you want to focus on. Indeed, many of our NGR game sessions involve little or no combat because the game actively promotes this play style—more on this below.

The presence of "crunch" and the depth of the rules leads me to the first positive of the review, which is also stated early in the book: "The Known Rule." This is two explicit statements in one: (a) if a rule isn't known, just make a ruling rather than look it up. (b) if you must look up a rule during play, you get -1 awesomeness if you're a player, or all players get +1 awesomeness if it's the GM looking up the rule. (Yes, awesomeness is a game mechanic, which I'll cover below.) In the same spirit of this, certain rules are marked as "basic" while others are more "fiddly." If you're new to the game, you can ignore the fiddly rules (such as armor "tags") to make the game more streamlined.

Furthermore, a lot of the modifier creep can be mitigated ahead of time with a well-organized character sheet. I can bundle common modifiers together and simply make note of the totals a lot easier than I ever could in Pathfinder.

Speaking of dealing damage, that works entirely differently in NGR than in D&D. In NGR, physical damage is only one type of accrued "point," along with stress, disease, poison, fear, suspicion (think of giving yourself away while sneaking), and even influence (trying to win an argument). Yes, NGR has mechanics for social conflict, and they work seamlessly with the rest of the system. Anyway, your barrier to taking all of these potential "damage" points is known as your Luck points. It's helpful to think of them as HP, although again, it covers all bases and not just physical damage. Whether you avoid a sword stab or just manage to avoid detection while having a torch lit, it's all Luck.

This leads to another great plus about NGR as a system. In general, by spreading the focus across both combat and various other non-combat aspects, NGR tends toward hi-jinx and shenanigans. For example, if you enter into a social conflict (i.e., argument) and burn your Luck points, you will not be so lucky if a fight breaks out later, or if you get thrown in jail and have to sneak your way out. Furthermore, that "awesomeness" I mentioned? You cash those points in at the end of sessions in the hopes of getting fate points. Fate points will let you re-roll bad dice or get some luck back in a pinch. Correspondingly, you gain awesomeness a number of different ways. One method is to purposefully make poor decisions—for example, getting drunk instead of taking your assigned watch at night. Another suggested method is to have "80's hair." You can really get more awesomeness and fate points by being elected the MVP of that night's session by the other players.

Furthermore, the XP system is a key (somewhat hidden) aspect to incentivizing certain play styles. There are distinct differences in the characteristics of a D&D game that gives experience points (i.e., character progression) for treasure when compared to a later edition that rewards monster-slaying. Every facet of NGR awards XP in a slightly different way, and I feel it's done in a way that de-emphasizes combat while still promoting risk-taking. A great example is the fact that you get increasing XP values for each new room in a dungeon you explore. As you deplete your resources, that next room could be worth 450 XP now, or zero XP once you come back to the dungeon a second time. That's because that room will then be your first new room, whereas it's the tenth new room this time around. That sort of press-your-luck enticement is embedded in NGR (and Zzarchov's GM style, for the record.) It puts a heavy risk-versus-reward ball in the players' court at all times, and it's when they are faced with real, meaningful choices that players get invested in the game.

Multiclassing is also easy in NGR. Imagine a pie chart broken into three pieces, and this is your character class. You can have all three "pie pieces" in warrior, or you could choose two parts warrior, one part wizard, and so forth. I'll spare you the details (which could get crunchy and count toward that first negative of esoteric confusion), but obviously the former example would be a more effective warrior than the latter, but the latter could at least cast a few spells if needed.

Lastly, the review would not be complete without a mention of Zzarchov's writing style. He's a witty guy—he enjoys more than his fair share of puns—and he's held back none of his sense of humor when writing the NGR rules. This is one of the few books that I've found legitimately enjoyable to read as it does not read like a dry technical manual. It's still easy to consult as a rulebook (even though there's no index and the PDF isn't bookmarked) but you could also easily read it from cover to cover.

I'll wrap up with my one final negative that we might encounter moving forward: name recognition. Unless you're familiar with Zzarchov or backed the recent Kickstarter, you probably don't even know about NGR. It's even less likely that your gaming group will know about it, so it may be difficult to drum up support for using it as a game system. But if you do, I know from experience that it has the potential to be a fantastically fun game.

Skills revisited: Dice pools and the LotFP playtest rules

So obviously the first thing I should do once I say that I want to play some more 5E is to start analyzing the rules for Lamentations of the Flame Princess.



Just a few days ago, I grabbed a copy of LotFP's Free RPG Day supplement for the year, Eldritch Cock.  It has a whole bunch of spells in it, but also what I think is the first unrestricted release of the LotFP playtest rules, a set of backwards-compatible rules changes for the game.

One of the coolest things, in my opinion, is the update of Saving Throws. They are now based on a d6 dice pool. Number of successes determines the result (2+ = full save, 1 = partial save, 0=fail). The only variable is, are you saving against a magical effect or not? I am a bit biased since I love dice pools inherently, but I think that this is a great improvement, at least on paper. Saving throws have always been a high hurdle to clear for lower-level characters. I want to see exactly how this plays out at the table.

Meanwhile, of all the great things in LotFP, the skill checks were the one thing that I never really liked. you have an n-in-6 chance, a single d6 roll. So (a) you want to roll low, and (b) you could end up with a 6-in-6 chance to do something if you buy enough of a single skill as a Specialist.

I mused on a potential upgrade to that here.



The playtest document (at least the one I scanned a while back; I don't know if James updated the rules in Eldritch Cock since I don't have it on me right now), essentially boils down to the following paraphrased rules:

- One random skill starts with a +3 bonus, and another begins with +2. If this is the same skill, it adds together to only be +4. (Target number for everything is 6 on a roll of d6, by the way. So in this case, failure only occurs on a 1.)

- For each bonus skill point (affected by INT), determine the skill randomly. negative modifiers start wiping out the starting bonuses from the last step.

- Specialists get 4 +1 bonuses to distribute at will at level 1, and add +2 per level.

- Roll 2d6 with 2x6's/2x1's being successes/failures if your total bonuses for a particular skill are less than 0/greater than +5. (Don't worry if I wrote it out confusingly because I kind of ignore this moving forward in my thought experiment.)

I wanted to see if I could keep the dice pool idea going from my original idea, and then see if I can adapt the playtest rule to follow the same model. We're already set to use a dice pool for saves, so why not skills?

(Forgive me because I'm now kind of writing this as I go...)

So first off, realize that the default skills follow a linear progression. 1 skill point is the same value (a 1-in-6 increase in probability) for all time. Your chance of success is 16.7%, 33.3%, 50%, etc. So in these playtest rules, every character has a 66.7% of success at a single skill, and a 50% chance on a second skill. Or they get the same result twice and get a single skill at 83.3%. Everything else stays at 16.7%.

So imagine we're using dice pools instead. The default of +0 Dice to a skill still gives you a base success chance of 16.7%, so that's good. In order to get closest to a 66.7% and a 50% chance for two separate skills, we'd need to add +5 dice and +3 dice, respectively, to each skill to yield success chances of 66.5% and 51.8%, the probabilities of success of dice pool sizes of 6 and 4. Let's accept that as our baseline, pre-tweaking value of dice for everyone.

Then comes Specialists. They get four +1 bonuses that they can arrange to taste. It's not easy to convert this to a dice pool, since they could add all +4 to a single skill, making a 1-in-6 chance a 5-in-6 chance. In dice pool terms, that's adding 9 dice to get your chances of success up to 83.8%...

(Before we move on, here's the incremental success percentage increase with each new die added to your pool: 2nd die = +13.9%; 3rd = +11.6%; 4th = +9.6%; 5th = +8.0%; 6th = +6.7%; 7th = +5.6%; 8th = +4.7%; 9th = +3.9%; 10th = +3.2%. If we average all these, we get about 7.5% per die.)

So back to Specialists. It looks like, to keep the +4 starting bonus consistent, we should convert it to +8 or +9 dice in my suggested dice pool system. They would clearly have the most benefit if you spread them all out over eight or nine different skills, with each one getting, therefore, a 31% chance of success. In this extreme, they're almost twice as effective as the +4 dice of the playtest rules. The playtest dice are more effective per skill (33.3%>31%), but you can only apply that bonus to four skills at most.

I... actually kind of like that approach. I think that the jack-of-all-trades seems more consistent with my idea of what a Specialist class brings to the table, which is the guy you hire to do the tricky stuff. I'm going to assume players will game the system, most likely spreading their bonus dice far and wide. However, if they want to tailor their character to fit a particular archetype, they can shift that pool around quite a bit. (Translator, Sailor, Acrobat, etc. are all merely different skill distributions.)

One last thing that I really like: in keeping the mechanics of skill rolls consistent with that of saving throws, not only are we unifying mechanics a bit, but we can also introduce variable results for skill rolls. 2+ successes means the skill is executed perfectly, whereas one success means there is a complication that develops. The downside to this, of course, is that most skills used by non-specialists are going to forever remain at 1 die, leading to automatic complications. I don't know how I feel about that yet.

What remains to be seen after this first thought experiment: (1) Do I want to tweak the amount of bonus dice for non-Specialist classes? It depends on whether the Specialist seems too crucial compared to the Fighter and Magic-User. (2) What about that INT bonus? Keep it consistent? Again, more playtesting required. (3) Maybe I'll give fighters bonus dice for Leadership, another new skill.

Game Mechanics: Dice, Doors, and Decimal Points

So I have a skill system hack I am working on and I want to share it with you.

Start with Lamentations of the Flame Princess, the rules set I am using for my Megadungeon Madness game. It's basically B/X but with some tweaks (ascending values of armor class, a silver piece standard, and no codified bestiary, for starters).  One of the nice things about it is that skills are based on d6 rolls. Virtually everything is a 1-in-6 chance, and specialists (read: thieves, but a less pigeonholed concept) get to invest points into expanding these skills. E.g., put two points in Sleight of Hand and your chance to execute such a task goes from 1-in-6 to 3-in-6.

I am hacking that d6 system a bit. Mostly because I love dice pools, but there is also a logic behind it.

First off, rather than expanding the range of success, I expand the number of dice you roll, while keeping 6 the target number. Note that statistically this is more difficult. For example, it is harder to roll three dice and get a 6 than to get a 4, 5, or 6 on a single die (the 3-in-6 case):

(A) Dice pool: 3-dice probablility = 1-(5/6)^3 = 42.13%
(B) One-die probability = (3/6) = 50%

A solution to the increased difficulty is that the GM should be more generous with the bonus dice. We already add dice based on invested Specialist skill points, but let's also add Ability Score bonuses. A +1 to Strength is easily added to your pool if you want to Open Doors, for example. Have a crowbar? Add another die. And so on. This borrows heavily (if it isn't identical) from the "negotiated skill system" that I heard used on the Dwimmermars game of +Adam Muszkiewicz (of such notable endeavors as Drink Spin Run, Metal Gods of Ur-Hadad, and whose name I can apparently spell without having to Google it now).

Another nice feature is that the bonuses can easily go to six or higher. Whereas a 6-in-6 chance of the basic one-die system is a guaranteed success, a pool of 6 dice is only going to yield a 6 at a rate of 66.51%. So don't be afraid to be liberal with your bonuses.

The problem that we have already come across thus far in my Megadungon game is that opening doors is still fairly likely to result in failure. Even with crowbars, people helping, and strength bonuses, you are pretty likely to not open the door.

This is where I got the idea to go straight into story game territory and offer the players a narrative choice. In the first option, the players could choose to let the door be. The door is swollen shut, just like St. Gary said it probably would be. The other option is to note your margin of failure. (E.g., was your highest result a 4? Then your margin of failure is 6-4 = 2.)  I'll let your character(s) persist at opening the door until they succeed, but I get to roll the margin of failure in Wandering Monster checks. (A dice pool of 2 in this example.) Again, each of these is a simple 1-in-6 chance.  The logical basis is that the worse your initial check result, the more noisy your success is going to be and the more likely you are to attract attention to yourself.

I think this is a pretty elegant mechanic for doors if you're going to go Full Dungeon Crawl. I'd like to think that my game ups the tension by emphasizing slow, careful mapping, and keeping track of resources, etc. Wandering monsters (or more accurately, random encounters) are another high-stakes element, and it's nice to put the devil's bargain in the players' court.  The alternative would be to have the players reroll the check while I check for the random encounter with each failure. This has the potential to be tediously drawn out, especially if the player has a small dice pool.

I've already used this mechanical tweak in one full game session, and the resulting random encounter was deadly. But more importantly, the decision of whether to push forward at the door had a lot of gravitas behind it. In all, it's an idea I'm quite proud of, given that I'm only starting to break out of the habit of sticking to rules as written. I'd probably have broken out of that habit ages ago, but it really requires sitting down to run some real games.