Which do you prefer between Castles & Crusades and Old School Essentials and why?
Depends what you want to do. Old School Essentials has the advantage that dungeon procedures are baked right in. This gives it the edge for old school dungeon crawling and the like.
Castles and Crusades is more like modern D&D but stripped down (although it does have old school lethality.) I'd use it more for running something from one of the 2e settings. It offers a little more towards the customisation of character with more classes in the core and the ability to pick your primes meaning you get a bit more control over what exactly your character is good at. It therefore maybe has an edge for more 'story' oriented campaigns.
Castles & Crusades predates the OSR for the most part, and it now has the crippling disadvantage of low compatibility with the best OSR adventures and materials. It's just less usable as a result relative to retro-clones and high-compatibility OSR games, so I don't think I would consider it unless I never used published modules.
I've been wondering about what the value and interest in OSE is other than it being the latest OSR release.
Quote from: camazotz on June 22, 2021, 11:44:05 AM
I've been wondering about what the value and interest in OSE is other than it being the latest OSR release.
Part of it is newness and part of it is marketing within the OSR community. The project basically started because Necrotic Gnome wanted a clone of B/X that was a clean restatement of the original (unlike Labyrinth Lord which made minor changes) and more logically organized. I'll give them credit for the clean organization and layouts, though it's definitely lacking the flavor and charm of the original Moldvay/Cook rulebooks. It also lacks a lot of the beginner friendliness of the Moldvay Basic rules.
Seems like OSE has now taken the position of being the Rosetta Stone of OSR rule sets, where if something has the OSE-compatible label, then it means it can be run with pretty much any OSR system with minimum fuss. Though again, you could convincingly argue that Labyrinth Lord and Swords & Wizardry do the same.
If you're looking for broad compatibility with OSR content, OSE is probably the better choice, and you can add on the Advanced Fantasy rules if you want more options. It'll also lend itself better to straight OSR style play.
Castles and Crusades has taken the place of 5e for D20 games for me. It has decent options, more old-school flavor than WotC D&D and flows pretty well in play. It was also blessed by Gary Gygax as a worthy successor to his D&D if that's something that matters to you. I've never tried any conversions with it, so I couldn't speak to how easy or difficult it might be, but I can't imagine it would be more difficult than converting to 5e.
Quote from: Plotinus on June 22, 2021, 07:52:02 AM
Castles & Crusades predates the OSR for the most part, and it now has the crippling disadvantage of low compatibility with the best OSR adventures and materials. It's just less usable as a result relative to retro-clones and high-compatibility OSR games, so I don't think I would consider it unless I never used published modules.
I thought the C&C guys advertise that you can do a few easy calculations on the fly to make these old adventures compatible with C&C.
Quote from: Batjon on June 22, 2021, 04:28:44 PM
Quote from: Plotinus on June 22, 2021, 07:52:02 AM
Castles & Crusades predates the OSR for the most part, and it now has the crippling disadvantage of low compatibility with the best OSR adventures and materials. It's just less usable as a result relative to retro-clones and high-compatibility OSR games, so I don't think I would consider it unless I never used published modules.
I thought the C&C guys advertise that you can do a few easy calculations on the fly to make these old adventures compatible with C&C.
That's correct. I ran it for years. Easy peasy on the fly conversions of adventures and such with any T/OSR D&D materials. Flip AC, HD = Attack bonus, figure out whether the monster should get PHYSICAL or MENTAL saves as PRIME (or both on the rare occasion), and that's it.
And as to the general discussion, I've found C&C to be the most robust to tinkering/adding to of any "edition" without the whole thing falling apart. I dropped the normal Prime 18/Non Prime 12 stuff around 2013, and just set all Challenge Base at 15, and gave PRIMEs advantage/Best of 2. I also have added in some bits from 13th Age (backgrounds, monster "specials"), Tinkered with with ability score mods, etc. It just works.
The only downside I see is getting through the (mainly failed) attempts at "High Gygaxian" prose, and the errors. I'm forgiving of the prose, because I'd rather read Davis' poor attempts, than read a boring school textbook manual ala Paizo or WOTC. But C&C is a great game to use as a foundation- just like White Box.
EDIT- And I've no use for OSE. Tom, Dave , and Steve already gave us the most concise and easy to use version of D&D back in 81. That's what I use for a MCM game.
Both fill different niches. OSE seems to be taking the role of the prime reference rules for the modern OSR, everything can be quickly converted to it. C&C is a nice middle ground between some of the more modern (3e era) D&D conventions and old school mentality.
Quote from: Red Death on June 22, 2021, 04:27:12 PM
Quote from: camazotz on June 22, 2021, 11:44:05 AM
I've been wondering about what the value and interest in OSE is other than it being the latest OSR release.
Part of it is newness and part of it is marketing within the OSR community. The project basically started because Necrotic Gnome wanted a clone of B/X that was a clean restatement of the original (unlike Labyrinth Lord which made minor changes) and more logically organized. I'll give them credit for the clean organization and layouts, though it's definitely lacking the flavor and charm of the original Moldvay/Cook rulebooks. It also lacks a lot of the beginner friendliness of the Moldvay Basic rules.
Seems like OSE has now taken the position of being the Rosetta Stone of OSR rule sets, where if something has the OSE-compatible label, then it means it can be run with pretty much any OSR system with minimum fuss. Though again, you could convincingly argue that Labyrinth Lord and Swords & Wizardry do the same.
If you're looking for broad compatibility with OSR content, OSE is probably the better choice, and you can add on the Advanced Fantasy rules if you want more options. It'll also lend itself better to straight OSR style play.
Castles and Crusades has taken the place of 5e for D20 games for me. It has decent options, more old-school flavor than WotC D&D and flows pretty well in play. It was also blessed by Gary Gygax as a worthy successor to his D&D if that's something that matters to you. I've never tried any conversions with it, so I couldn't speak to how easy or difficult it might be, but I can't imagine it would be more difficult than converting to 5e.
Okay good to know. I'm kind of in the same boat as JeffB, where I see the original B/X as the definitive editions and really don't need replacements. That special charm that came from the original books is key to their success.
I have run C&C before, and have fond memories of those campaigns; it had the most "D&D" feel in the classic sense to it, something not quite captured in the post 2000 era of official D&D.
Quote from: Batjon on June 22, 2021, 04:28:44 PM
Quote from: Plotinus on June 22, 2021, 07:52:02 AM
Castles & Crusades predates the OSR for the most part, and it now has the crippling disadvantage of low compatibility with the best OSR adventures and materials. It's just less usable as a result relative to retro-clones and high-compatibility OSR games, so I don't think I would consider it unless I never used published modules.
I thought the C&C guys advertise that you can do a few easy calculations on the fly to make these old adventures compatible with C&C.
I mean, of course they
say that, and of course it's more true of Castles & Crusades than of 3e D&D, but it always turns out to be not so simple in practice, especially for people who aren't already very experienced in various editions and willing to fudge things using rough equivalents on the fly. Whereas OSE is a virtually exact clone of B/X, an edition that occupies a place near the center of TSR D&D, and is very close mechanically to OD&D, AD&D, BECMI, etc.
I need to find a video or something that explains the basics of how the rules work in OSE to see if it is for me. I started on old red box D&D in '82 or '83 and wonder if this would remind me of it. I just do not recall enough of the old system to remember most of the rules. The individual books in the slipcase appear to be sold out currently.
Quote from: Batjon on June 22, 2021, 12:29:21 AM
Which do you prefer between Castles & Crusades and Old School Essentials and why?
OSE is a pure retro-clone, a reference for people who don't like B/X's organization, and a clean and easy way to advertise your self-published adventure is for B/X without saying "for B/X!".
Both of these are worthy goals, but saying you run OSE not B/X is the same as saying you run OSRIC not AD&D. It means you have profoundly missed the point somewhere, and I question whether I'd even enjoy playing under a GM that autistic. Exact game is good to know if we start talking about page numbers, but an exercise in splitting hairs otherwise. Conversely though, it's useful to know that "for OSE" really means "for B/X," "for ACKS," "for Labyrinth Lord," and so on.
Running B/X/"OSE" strictly by the book is an exercise worth doing, to see what emerges, but not forever. The game can be improved on. Fighters should get a little something more than they do as they level, as just one example. Most GMs end up houseruling it or adding in bits from other systems. If you're the type of GM to follow the rulebook no matter what, forever, I would say it's a bad choice for you.
Labyrinth Lord is in the category of "retroclones" that are also their own games. It's a little closer to AD&D than B/X, and the mechanical base in the 3e Open Game License shows sometimes, but it's still it's own thing.
I've got a soft spot for it, it remains fully playable and a reasonable option, but it doesn't stand out from the crowd the way it did when it was new. Everybody fixes the SIEGE engine target numbers one way or another, and everybody should but not everybody does throw out C&C's 3e-inspired increasing save DCs in favor of the AD&D method (especially important for fighters in the late game), but these are known and easy fixes.
Between Castles & Crusades and B/X, which is what you're actually asking, I would run a houseruled B/X with rationalized domain/economic/downtime/magic research systems that were there if I ever needed them, but not necessary for play. That game is ACKS, which I am actually running.
I wouldn't mind running C&C either, I would run that before "OSE" just because I've already got my B/X box checked. It just doesn't quite float to the top of my list before ACKS and Traveller.
Quote from: Batjon on June 22, 2021, 09:06:26 PM
I need to find a video or something that explains the basics of how the rules work in OSE to see if it is for me. I started on old red box D&D in '82 or '83 and wonder if this would remind me of it. I just do not recall enough of the old system to remember most of the rules. The individual books in the slipcase appear to be sold out currently.
OSE is B/X so videos on either will work. One of the advantages of OSE was the SRD creation online: it's well laid out and should allow you to find out everything you need to know:
https://oldschoolessentials.necroticgnome.com/srd/index.php/Main_Page
The basic rules PDF are free as well if you prefer something you can just hand out.
I supported the first KS as I wanted the B/X rules in a nice hardback book format and organised: I think Gavin succeeded at that and helped revive the traditional B/X style of play for younger players.
I think I asked on this board why everyone was getting such a massive stiffy for OSE back around the time it came out, and nobody really seemed to have an answer except better organisation, and basically I had no soul and why couldn't I just eff off and let people enjoy spending their money? So, I did.
Quote from: Marchand on June 23, 2021, 11:18:59 AM
I think I asked on this board why everyone was getting such a massive stiffy for OSE back around the time it came out, and nobody really seemed to have an answer except better organisation, and basically I had no soul and why couldn't I just eff off and let people enjoy spending their money? So, I did.
I thought the answer would be a full re-organising of the rules in a quality hardback format, available as actual prints for using at the table, reducing some of the confusing sections, revitalizing interest in the Moldvay/Cook edition, and a KS that actually delivered on its expectations, but what do I know. heh
It's still arguably one of the best editions TSR put out, so it deserved to be known better.
Also WotC doesn't get any money from the purchase , which might be a plus for some, or even the key factor.
Soulless? eff off? Strange reaction to a simple question unless there was more to it.
OSE is a great pretty book that gets constant use to cover gaps B/X derivatives decided their game did not need, like sea travel rules or the depth of boats.
I don't see the draw of OSE and C&C is AD&D 3e.
As for compatibility issues in the OSR, I see lots of number counting of angels on the heads of pins. Back in the day, it was very common to mix and match B/X, AD&D, Arduin, Judges Guild and whatever weird zine you picked up at a local con.
B/X has always resounded with lots of gamers, so no surprise that OSE would gather fans. Of course, the joke of OD&D has always been that when you take 0e and add piles of new stuff, you end up with 1e and now need to go find 0e again.
Quote from: rocksfalleverybodydies on June 23, 2021, 02:33:16 PM
Quote from: Marchand on June 23, 2021, 11:18:59 AM
I think I asked on this board why everyone was getting such a massive stiffy for OSE back around the time it came out, and nobody really seemed to have an answer except better organisation, and basically I had no soul and why couldn't I just eff off and let people enjoy spending their money? So, I did.
I thought the answer would be a full re-organising of the rules in a quality hardback format, available as actual prints for using at the table, reducing some of the confusing sections, revitalizing interest in the Moldvay/Cook edition, and a KS that actually delivered on its expectations, but what do I know. heh
It's still arguably one of the best editions TSR put out, so it deserved to be known better.
Also WotC doesn't get any money from the purchase , which might be a plus for some, or even the key factor.
Soulless? eff off? Strange reaction to a simple question unless there was more to it.
Yeah I thought so too. I was in the camp of struggling to see the point of shelling out for OSE when I already have B/X (and OD&D etc. etc.), but some people (I can't be bothered digging back old threads to name names) objected strongly to the question even being asked in a fairly neutral way. I don't care much either way, so I walked away. I suspect the more there was to it was just fans loving it. And, you know, good luck to them.
Quote from: Plotinus on June 22, 2021, 07:52:02 AM
Castles & Crusades predates the OSR for the most part, and it now has the crippling disadvantage of low compatibility with the best OSR adventures and materials. It's just less usable as a result relative to retro-clones and high-compatibility OSR games, so I don't think I would consider it unless I never used published modules.
How is compatibility low? I frequently convert 1E and/or OSRIC material on the fly with no trouble at all.
Quote from: The Spaniard on July 05, 2021, 06:28:57 PM
Quote from: Plotinus on June 22, 2021, 07:52:02 AM
Castles & Crusades predates the OSR for the most part, and it now has the crippling disadvantage of low compatibility with the best OSR adventures and materials. It's just less usable as a result relative to retro-clones and high-compatibility OSR games, so I don't think I would consider it unless I never used published modules.
How is compatibility low?
It's not.
I don't see how anyone who spent more than 30 minutes DMing C&C can find it "low compatibility" with TSR, OSR, or even 3.0 material
Some people have a very high bar for what they consider "compatible". They are the same ones that didn't consider D&D 2E compatible with 1E. I'm kind of the opposite. If I can eyeball it and run with it straight out of the book, that's compatible enough for me.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on July 05, 2021, 11:06:01 PM
Some people have a very high bar for what they consider "compatible". They are the same ones that didn't consider D&D 2E compatible with 1E. I'm kind of the opposite. If I can eyeball it and run with it straight out of the book, that's compatible enough for me.
Evidently; some people take compatibility to mean plug and play, without modifications needed.
Quote from: Jam The MF on July 06, 2021, 02:11:48 AM
Evidently; some people take compatibility to mean plug and play, without modifications needed.
I think it is often more like "Can I do the modifications in my head almost without conscious thought, on the fly?" It's merely that those are highly subjective criteria which vary not only with the person and game but over time as the person gains familiarity with the game. I mean, there was a time when I could run an AD&D module straight as a Fantasy Hero game, without writing down the converted stats. Didn't mean they were compatible in any ordinary sense of the term, but in practice they were compatible for me. :D
I don't have nor have I read/played OSE. However, I'm a fan of C&C - the world of Aihrde is detailed and ideal for classic fantasy play. Tons of options and ideas across the books. It has some modern conventions but is very old-school in feel. Folks in TLG and fans are helpful and enthusiastic. New products (often in KS) improve on the product without making breaking changes to previous versions. It's a very customer/player friendly business model.
Quote from: Batjon on June 22, 2021, 12:29:21 AM
Which do you prefer between Castles & Crusades and Old School Essentials and why?
Every time I look at C&C it seems like another 3e/5e clone. I'm not interested in that. Why do the reviewers keep saying it's just like 1st edition AD&D?
Quote from: Timothe on April 02, 2023, 08:03:37 AM
Quote from: Batjon on June 22, 2021, 12:29:21 AM
Which do you prefer between Castles & Crusades and Old School Essentials and why?
Every time I look at C&C it seems like another 3e/5e clone. I'm not interested in that. Why do the reviewers keep saying it's just like 1st edition AD&D?
Other than having ascending AC and a different saving throw system, it feels just like playing AD&D. I use all original 1E modules and/or more recent compatible work and just convert it with little or no prep. It doesn't use the 3E skills or feats and is nothing like 5E.
If anything 5e stole ideas from C&C, not the other way around. But yeah, it really is AD&D with a couple, albeit significant, changes that give it that 21st century gloss. That makes it easy to convert D&D adventures from most editions (not sure about 4th) over on the fly. As an example, I've been doing a C&C conversion/expansion of Undermountain and it's been no trouble at all to convert either 2e or 5e material to C&C, particularly with the monsters.
Quote from: JeffB on July 05, 2021, 06:42:03 PM
Quote from: The Spaniard on July 05, 2021, 06:28:57 PM
Quote from: Plotinus on June 22, 2021, 07:52:02 AM
Castles & Crusades predates the OSR for the most part, and it now has the crippling disadvantage of low compatibility with the best OSR adventures and materials. It's just less usable as a result relative to retro-clones and high-compatibility OSR games, so I don't think I would consider it unless I never used published modules.
How is compatibility low?
It's not.
I don't see how anyone who spent more than 30 minutes DMing C&C can find it "low compatibility" with TSR, OSR, or even 3.0 material
Exactly
I'm a fan of B/X rule set, and even though I have the original Basic and Expert sets on hand, I bought the OSE for reference material at the table.
Then I went on to hack my own system from OSE, and now I run that ;)
So, no need for anyone else's systems or settings at my table anymore.
I still buy OSR-related materials due to wanting to keep the OSR hobby alive.
The system summaries here may be of use / interest:
https://unsoundmethodsblog.wordpress.com/2023/03/12/twenty-osr-systems-reviewed/
I went the OSE route (as I have said in multiple threads and are probably sick of me saying) ;D
I looked over many of the different OSR books/systems out there and for me OSE just worked and made sense. I did this because I am currently running 5e and I having real annoyances with the system and I no longer want to give WOTC any more money.
I looked at Castles and Crusades and it just seemed a bit clunky/overcomplicated to me and that really turned me off of it. OSE makes sense to me. Plus, being able to use the OSE adventures that are published and any B/X adventures out there gives me a wealth of material to work with.
When I playtested C&C back in the day, I had handy all sorts of AD&D monster books and AD&D modules and ran that stuff with minimal conversion. C&C is basically AD&D rebuilt on a 3E framework. There are a few changes such as ascending AC, the SIEGE mechanic, and such, but really nothing that couldn't be converted on the fly.
OSE is basically B/X D&D, so if you like that better than AD&D then go that route.
My group went from OD&D to AD&D to 2E to 3E to 5E, so C&C was more intuitive for me, but I assume if you learned D&D through B/X and BECME then OSE would be a better choice.
Quote from: finarvyn on April 02, 2023, 08:58:38 PM
When I playtested C&C back in the day, I had handy all sorts of AD&D monster books and AD&D modules and ran that stuff with minimal conversion. C&C is basically AD&D rebuilt on a 3E framework. There are a few changes such as ascending AC, the SIEGE mechanic, and such, but really nothing that couldn't be converted on the fly.
OSE is basically B/X D&D, so if you like that better than AD&D then go that route.
My group went from OD&D to AD&D to 2E to 3E to 5E, so C&C was more intuitive for me, but I assume if you learned D&D through B/X and BECME then OSE would be a better choice.
I assume you are addressing me. Even if you are not, I agree with your assessment. That's why after reading a bunch of different things that I settled on OSE.
C&C is not really over complicated, but if you don't have an AD&D background, the greater number of options, spells, etc., will make for a higher entry bar than OSE, particularly if you're sticking to classic, as opposed to "Advanced" OSE. I love both games and have played both extensively. Personally, I slightly prefer C&C, but my players prefer OSE and it is easier for me to run so we end up playing that more.
Quote from: Persimmon on April 03, 2023, 10:45:42 AM
C&C is not really over complicated, but if you don't have an AD&D background, the greater number of options, spells, etc., will make for a higher entry bar than OSE, particularly if you're sticking to classic, as opposed to "Advanced" OSE. I love both games and have played both extensively. Personally, I slightly prefer C&C, but my players prefer OSE and it is easier for me to run so we end up playing that more.
I am thinking that after I go through the classic OSE book I might get the Advanced ones to add more classes and other features to spice up the game.
Figured I start with classic, see if its really want I want then move up.