We got a game group forming on Tuesday who want to play some older versions of D&D and are considering using retro-clones. Right now, we are considering OSRIC, Swords & Wizardry, and Labyrinth Lord. So how close is the actual play from each of these to the original AD&D1, 0D&D, and Basic D&D? What are the similarities and what are the differences?
Note that I'm not asking if the retro-clones suck or rock, just if they allow a similar play experience to what they clone.
Quote from: jeff37923;283474We got a game group forming on Tuesday who want to play some older versions of D&D and are considering using retro-clones. Right now, we are considering OSRIC, Swords & Wizardry, and Labyrinth Lord. So how close is the actual play from each of these to the original AD&D1, 0D&D, and Basic D&D? What are the similarities and what are the differences?
Note that I'm not asking if the retro-clones suck or rock, just if they allow a similar play experience to what they clone.
They are probably as similar as Mongoose Traveller is to CT, perhaps closer, depending on your perspective. Shift some xp values around, take the names of Uncle Gary's original group's characters out of the spell list, and that is about all OSRIC changed. Oh, and no monks. Labyrinth Lord was designed similarly, as I recall. I've not done an exhaustive comparison or anything, but I had about half the people in my PbP thread use OSRIC to make their characters. I have already made a couple of ruling decisions using the OSRIC pdf instead of waiting to get home from work to look something up in the 1st edition books.
You might have one or two 'do-overs' because of a different wording between the two, although I doubt even that, really.
They play 99% like the originals. Seriously, the differences are not noticeable in play.
S&W probably departs the most from it's original, by using greater experience point requirements for elves and dwarves instead of hard level limits. However, that's a change I am happy with.
Oh yeah, in LL clerics get a spell a first level. Some people think this is a big difference.
Quote from: jeff37923;283474Note that I'm not asking if the retro-clones suck or rock, just if they allow a similar play experience to what they clone.
Yes there are minor differences that is more than made up by superior presentations than the original. Superior as far as learning and understanding how to play the respective version.
This is especially true in the case of the two Swords & Wizardry versions. I don't if know if you have the pleasure of reading the originals 1974 rules but they are a bit disjointed. Swords & Wizards reorganizes this in two version. One which is equivalent to OD&D + the Greyhawk Supplement, and other which is equivalent to OD&D alone. The Greyhawk Supplement is when D&D became recognizably D&D. The original rules carry over a lot of stuff from Chainmail, a older medieval miniature wargame.
They are definitely closer to the originals than Mongoose Traveller is to Classic Traveller. I've played Basic Fantasy several times and it's very close in most respects to the way I've always played AD&D. I'm also looking at running a LL game in the near future (i blowed up my traveller game real good - ship combat against equals = TPK. Hell, even if they won they would have been fucked. Their ship was full of holes, fuel gone, and expensive cargo blown out. oops...).
LL looks so close that it's hard to tell where it deviates- other than the 1st level cleric thing. The only reason I'd choose LL over the real thing is that my players could download the rules legally for free.
Mike, if you got space in your upcoming LL game, I'd love to be in on it.
Quote from: jeff37923;283511Mike, if you got space in your upcoming LL game, I'd love to be in on it.
The group is as big as our seating allows right now, but that may be changing soon. I'll let you know if it does.
Quote from: jeff37923;283474We got a game group forming on Tuesday who want to play some older versions of D&D and are considering using retro-clones. Right now, we are considering OSRIC, Swords & Wizardry, and Labyrinth Lord. So how close is the actual play from each of these to the original AD&D1, 0D&D, and Basic D&D? What are the similarities and what are the differences?
Note that I'm not asking if the retro-clones suck or rock, just if they allow a similar play experience to what they clone.
OSRIC -v- Gary Gygax's 1e:
OSRIC's supposed to recreate the pre-Unearthed Arcana game. It makes no attempt to replicate cavaliers, thief/acrobats, drow player characters etc.
Other differences:
1. OSRIC lacks monks and bards.
2. OSRIC lacks weapon speed factors and weapons -v- AC type charts.
3. OSRIC lacks psionics and certain psionic creatures.
4. Experience point requirements to gain a level are slightly different.
5. OSRIC lacks artefacts and relics.
6. OSRIC lacks unique creatures (Demogorgon, Orcus, etc.; Bahamut, Tiamat, etc.) and certain other creatures almost never encountered in normal play.
7. Certain creature and spell names are slightly changed.
8. There are no rules for construction and siege.
9. There are no rules for followers for upper-level player characters.
If you used monks, bards, psionics, weapon speed factors, weapons -v- AC type charts, artifacts, relics or unique creatures from the lower outer planes in your 1e play, you'll find OSRIC substantially different from the original.
If you didn't, you should find OSRIC plays virtually the same.
OSRIC does include Uneathed Arcana weapon specialisation though - x2 spec gives a character +3 to hit, +3 damage, and 3 attacks per 2 rounds right from 1st level.
C&C plays really really close to AD&D, in my recent experience. That's good and bad: good because it does what it wants to do, bad because there's no great reason to use it instead of AD&D.
Quote from: Imperator;283583C&C plays really really close to AD&D, in my recent experience. That's good and bad: good because it does what it wants to do, bad because there's no great reason to use it instead of AD&D.
I use it for its SIEGE engine, and supplement liberally with stuff from D&D of every stripe.
I'd argue that the best reason to use C&C is because it interfaces with all those other games so well. It's D&D Switzerland.
Quote from: Dr Rotwang!;283586I use it for its SIEGE engine, and supplement liberally with stuff from D&D of every stripe.
I'd argue that the best reason to use C&C is because it interfaces with all those other games so well. It's D&D Switzerland.
Not a bad reason. As I said, we had a good time, but being old time AD&D players, we didn't see any spectacular improvement or reason to make the change.
Anyway, these are RQ Vikings days ;)
Quote from: S'mon;283577OSRIC does include Uneathed Arcana weapon specialisation though - x2 spec gives a character +3 to hit, +3 damage, and 3 attacks per 2 rounds right from 1st level.
It does, as an optional rule. :)
Quote from: S'mon;283577OSRIC does include Uneathed Arcana weapon specialisation though - x2 spec gives a character +3 to hit, +3 damage, and 3 attacks per 2 rounds right from 1st level.
Wow. I remember when Unearthed Arcana came out and we *loved* this rule. Now, I really think it's a bad addition. :)
LL and OSRIC are probably slightly closer to their originals than Swords & Wizardry, mainly because S&W uses a single-category saving throw, strips out more material (psionics, naval warfare, bonus vs AC tables, thieves) and allows for using ascending AC (as an option, but the numbers are there in brackets). The less supplemental material you used in the day, the closer S&W comes to being exact - this is true even for the Core Rules, which use the Supplement I hit dice and variable damage that carried forth into 1e.