TheRPGSite

Pen & Paper Roleplaying Central => Pen and Paper Roleplaying Games (RPGs) Discussion => Topic started by: Razor 007 on September 11, 2020, 11:43:41 PM

Title: Regarding the OSR goodness: Do you prefer the takes on OD&D, or B/X, or AD&D?
Post by: Razor 007 on September 11, 2020, 11:43:41 PM
Which one has inspired the best heritage within the OSR?
Title: Re: Regarding the OSR goodness: Do you prefer the takes on OD&D, or B/X, or AD&D?
Post by: Steven Mitchell on September 12, 2020, 12:06:11 AM
I prefer B/X--specifically the Rules Compendium version.
No idea on the rest of your question.
Title: Re: Regarding the OSR goodness: Do you prefer the takes on OD&D, or B/X, or AD&D?
Post by: Simlasa on September 12, 2020, 01:07:10 AM
B/X for me as well.
AD&D was the first I played... but when I came back to being interested in D&D it was B/X and the OSR takes on it.
Title: Re: Regarding the OSR goodness: Do you prefer the takes on OD&D, or B/X, or AD&D?
Post by: S'mon on September 12, 2020, 01:43:00 AM
Why not all?  :D


I love Swords & Wizardry, Labyrinth Lord & OSRIC about equally. Probably the OD&D based stuff has been the most innovative, eg White Star. But for "let's play", OSRIC as a reproduction of AD&D-as-played is perfect.
Title: Re: Regarding the OSR goodness: Do you prefer the takes on OD&D, or B/X, or AD&D?
Post by: Arkansan on September 12, 2020, 02:41:19 AM
Personally I prefer the takes on OD&D, Jason Vey's Conan booklets being some of my favorite OSR materials. However it does seem like B/X really took off in the OSR in general.
Title: Re: Regarding the OSR goodness: Do you prefer the takes on OD&D, or B/X, or AD&D?
Post by: Malfi on September 12, 2020, 03:21:53 AM
At this point I am sold on Adnd, maybe using some houserules from Dragonsfoot, to fix certain things.
Title: Re: Regarding the OSR goodness: Do you prefer the takes on OD&D, or B/X, or AD&D?
Post by: SavageSchemer on September 12, 2020, 07:28:32 AM
I prefer OD&D, but have played more B/X.
Title: Re: Regarding the OSR goodness: Do you prefer the takes on OD&D, or B/X, or AD&D?
Post by: Chainsaw on September 12, 2020, 08:15:46 AM
Either OD&D or AD&D takes, depends on my mood.
Title: Re: Regarding the OSR goodness: Do you prefer the takes on OD&D, or B/X, or AD&D?
Post by: Snowman0147 on September 12, 2020, 10:43:56 AM
I strongly prefer B/X.
Title: Re: Regarding the OSR goodness: Do you prefer the takes on OD&D, or B/X, or AD&D?
Post by: jeff37923 on September 12, 2020, 12:32:57 PM
Which one has inspired the best heritage within the OSR?


I can't speak to that because the OSR has changed since it began. I can say that I've gotten some good mileage out of Basic Fantasy and Advanced Labyrinth Lord*.


*I've found that Players like ALL better than regular Labyrinth Lord, but I like regular LL over ALL as GM.


EDIT: I think that the above game lines carry on some traditions of AD&D and B/X D&D, but are hybrids of them which brings out a different (and I'd say) better gaming experience that what was.
Title: Re: Regarding the OSR goodness: Do you prefer the takes on OD&D, or B/X, or AD&D?
Post by: RandyB on September 12, 2020, 02:27:10 PM
I am a huge ACKS fanboy, so B/X there. But my heart of hearts belongs to 1e AD&D. OSRIC works, but the text lacks the Gygaxian prose that so informed my youth.

It's no surprise that my burgeoning game is a 1e/OSRIC/ACKS mash-up...
Title: Re: Regarding the OSR goodness: Do you prefer the takes on OD&D, or B/X, or AD&D?
Post by: Mishihari on September 12, 2020, 06:21:36 PM
Okay, so if I'm looking for an AD&D with better rules, what's my best bet?  (And don't say 2e)
Title: Re: Regarding the OSR goodness: Do you prefer the takes on OD&D, or B/X, or AD&D?
Post by: LiferGamer on September 12, 2020, 06:44:43 PM
OSRIC is nice and clean, easy to use.  The prior version of Havkmaster is a fun read, but clunky.
Title: Re: Regarding the OSR goodness: Do you prefer the takes on OD&D, or B/X, or AD&D?
Post by: Philotomy Jurament on September 12, 2020, 07:09:04 PM
I'd have to say AD&D, as far as published "OSR" rules sets go. OSRIC is very solid. I also like Astonishing Swordsmen & Swordsmen of Hyperborea, although I like it more for the subclasses and setting than for the rules themselves. I always run games using the 1e books. But I sometimes draw on OSRIC or AS&SH supplements and modules. And if there are players that want a copy of the rules, I'm happy to point them towards the free OSRIC pdf.


I also like original D&D, of course, but again I favor using the original TSR rules and then modifying them to suit your game. That's the biggest strength of original D&D, in my opinion. Consequently, I don't draw on the original D&D clones much, although I'd be happy to use a S&W module (for example) in my original D&D game.


I think Lion & Dragon is pretty cool. I haven't run it as its own thing, but I've drawn on it as a resource for certain original D&D "mini campaigns" that I've run.



I guess that's my pattern: I don't really run "OSR" games, but I love being able to draw on OSR game supplements/adventures/etc. as resources for my 1e AD&D and original D&D games.



Title: Re: Regarding the OSR goodness: Do you prefer the takes on OD&D, or B/X, or AD&D?
Post by: jeff37923 on September 12, 2020, 08:25:48 PM
Okay, so if I'm looking for an AD&D with better rules, what's my best bet?  (And don't say 2e)


Give Advanced Labyrinth Lord a look. It is pretty good for a better but still compatable AD&D.
Title: Re: Regarding the OSR goodness: Do you prefer the takes on OD&D, or B/X, or AD&D?
Post by: Hakdov on September 12, 2020, 08:32:12 PM
I think the correct answer for me is B/X mechanics with my own house rules and inspiration from AD&D.  With that in mind, I just backed the Old-School Essentials: Advanced Fantasy kickstarter. 
Title: Re: Regarding the OSR goodness: Do you prefer the takes on OD&D, or B/X, or AD&D?
Post by: Zirunel on September 12, 2020, 08:41:51 PM

I guess that's my pattern: I don't really run "OSR" games, but I love being able to draw on OSR game supplements/adventures/etc. as resources for my 1e AD&D and original D&D games.


Yes! See, I thought that's all the "OSR" ever was:  imprimateurs that allow people to legally produce new material for old games. You can't write and sell an adventure and say it's for B/X or AD&D, that's verboten. But you can publish an adventure for OSRIC or Labyrinth Lord, and Bob's your uncle, done and done. Everybody knows it's *really* an adventure for B/X or AD&D,  but if you observe the niceties it's all legal and above board.
Title: Re: Regarding the OSR goodness: Do you prefer the takes on OD&D, or B/X, or AD&D?
Post by: Dave R on September 12, 2020, 09:12:08 PM
I'm running a house-ruled version of ACKS, so that puts me in the B/X camp.


I've got a soft spot for AD&D too. I'm unlikely to revisit it now given my other options and commitments, but if I do I'm going straight to the source, not filtering it through OSRIC or any other clone. The baroque is part of the charm.
Title: Re: Regarding the OSR goodness: Do you prefer the takes on OD&D, or B/X, or AD&D?
Post by: S'mon on September 12, 2020, 09:22:38 PM
You can't write and sell an adventure and say it's for B/X or AD&D, that's verboten.


Legally, you can.
Title: Re: Regarding the OSR goodness: Do you prefer the takes on OD&D, or B/X, or AD&D?
Post by: Zirunel on September 12, 2020, 09:35:54 PM
You can't write and sell an adventure and say it's for B/X or AD&D, that's verboten.


Legally, you can.


Really? Okay well if that's true, then perhaps I have misunderstood the whole raison d'etre for retroclones
Title: Re: Regarding the OSR goodness: Do you prefer the takes on OD&D, or B/X, or AD&D?
Post by: Arkansan on September 12, 2020, 10:02:28 PM
Retroclones developed because for a long time the relevant rules systems were out of print with no legal way to acquire them other than an increasingly costly secondary market.
Title: Re: Regarding the OSR goodness: Do you prefer the takes on OD&D, or B/X, or AD&D?
Post by: Pat on September 12, 2020, 11:01:33 PM
Retroclones developed because for a long time the relevant rules systems were out of print with no legal way to acquire them other than an increasingly costly secondary market.
That was later. Zirunel was correct, the first real clone (OSRIC) was explicitly developed to allow people to put "compatible with OSRIC" on a module and then winkwinknod people would know you were supposed to use it with AD&D 1st edition. OSRIC wasn't intended to supplant 1e, you were supposed to use your old PH and DMG, or buy them on the second hand market. That's why the 1st edition wasn't a complete game, it was just enough of a framework so module writers could reference it, instead of AD&D, and not run afoul of protected expressions within 1e. It's also why they consulted lawyers, why the copyright holder is British (because it's much harder to file a copyright suit), and why things like the XP progressions are changed (formulas aren't protected, but judges have ruled that tables are). They were very careful to dot all the i's and cross all the t's.

But people liked the idea of OSRIC being a game in itself, so they expanded the 2nd edition into a complete game. Later clones had different aims, and didn't worry about the legalities as much. Partly, that's because OSRIC was over-cautious. Which was reasonable, since they were the first (since Mayfair at least), and the first to deal with the OGL. (And the OGL did add some value, because it explicitly permits the use of things like spell names.) But it's a long-standing principle of copyright law that that you can copyright the expression of an idea, but not the idea itself. So copying text is verboten, but the mechanics are fair game (if you rewrite them sufficiently). The main reason nobody tested that earlier was because being legally right doesn't protect you from being sued, and copyright law can get tricky (cf. tables) so it's easy to fuck up. But clone after clone came along, and it became clear that WotC wasn't suing people left and right, so authors became less paranoid over time. Though WotC can always decide to sue them, and if so certain clones will be in trouble.
Title: Re: Regarding the OSR goodness: Do you prefer the takes on OD&D, or B/X, or AD&D?
Post by: S'mon on September 13, 2020, 02:44:29 AM
Really? Okay well if that's true, then perhaps I have misunderstood the whole raison d'etre for retroclones


Legally, under trademark law you can indicate compatibility - so you can publish material "Compatible with D&D, Trade marks used without permission", as eg Kenzer has done quite recently. But T$R in the '90s was extremely aggressive in trying to stop the publication of D&D compatible material, even fan works, and this had a chilling effect on the market.

Copyright law is a lot less clear cut, at least in the USA, though the main reasons OSRIC is published under UK law were the lack of punitive damages and the way fees work - Marshall's solicitor firm had agreed to represent him on a no-win no-fee basis, and he was in a good position to fight WoTC if they challenged him under the OGL. WoTC claim to own copyright in various expressive elements of D&D in a way that you can't use them in a third party product. Also there is stuff like their formatted monster stat blocks which you can use under the OGL licence but could not legally use under copyright law IMO.


The OGL is a licence which provides a safe harbour intended to allow the publication of D&D-based third party material in a way WoTC finds acceptable, without risk to their registered & claimed trade marks. It allows you to use some WoTC-copyrighted material, at the cost of not being able to use their trade marks even to indicate compatibility. The way the OGL and the SRD are structured do enable the creation of retro-clones like OSRIC.
Title: Re: Regarding the OSR goodness: Do you prefer the takes on OD&D, or B/X, or AD&D?
Post by: AceFortune on September 13, 2020, 06:16:24 AM
I think it would have to be the B/X stuff which for me is my OSR ruleset, I never played the Original DnD and I didnt even realise until recently that Basic wasnt just the Moldvay version of Basic and Expert, and the more I read the Rules Compendium and all the Companion, Masters, and Immortals stuff Im glad I played the way I did, but Im loving all the new stuff especially Old School Essentials Im looking forward to my wife and daughter playing with this set.
Title: Re: Regarding the OSR goodness: Do you prefer the takes on OD&D, or B/X, or AD&D?
Post by: Armchair Gamer on September 13, 2020, 09:53:39 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't OSRIC originate as a reaction to what people saw as the over-cautious and overly compromised approach of Castles & Crusades to using the OGL to go 'old school'?
Title: Re: Regarding the OSR goodness: Do you prefer the takes on OD&D, or B/X, or AD&D?
Post by: JeffB on September 13, 2020, 12:17:18 PM
It's complicated.

I started with OD&D in 1977, though Moldvay/Cook/Marsh was immediately adopted at the time it was released.

OSR-wise- I'm definitely more into the OD&D aspect, and I was all gung-ho from C&C original publication, through OSRIC & S&W (core) up until a year or so ago.

These days I have little use for the gazillions of  clones/retro styles, except White Box, nor much use for what I'm seeing for "adventure material".   Like the D20 era, for every great product, you have to sift through mounds of mediocre crap to find something worthwhile.  To catch my interest, you really need to knock it out of the park with thematic/fictional elements and clever use of mechanics- Games like Encounter Critical, Seven Voyages of Zylarthen, Astonishing Swordsmen & Sorcerers. Modern OSR seems to be all about two questions-
 
"How edgey/old school punk" can I be?"
or
"How can I make 5E more old school?" 


I have zero interest in either. Instead, I've gone back to/rediscovered my original and early 3PP materials for inspiration.


Title: Re: Regarding the OSR goodness: Do you prefer the takes on OD&D, or B/X, or AD&D?
Post by: hedgehobbit on September 13, 2020, 03:03:02 PM
I used to be a B/X purist but switched to OD&D along with some rules cribbed from earlier editions and EPT. I will say, however, that race-as-class is mechanically superior to race+class so I use race-as-class in my OD&D game.
Title: Re: Regarding the OSR goodness: Do you prefer the takes on OD&D, or B/X, or AD&D?
Post by: Pat on September 13, 2020, 06:47:13 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't OSRIC originate as a reaction to what people saw as the over-cautious and overly compromised approach of Castles & Crusades to using the OGL to go 'old school'?
C&C wasn't overly cautious, they essentially tried to create a game that was compatible with AD&D's raw stats, but using a more modern engine based on the d20 system (with some unique quirks). C&C's initial audience was people who were disaffected by 3e. Not the true old school gamers; the people who had never switched to 3e in the first place still played the games they always played, and hung out at places like DF. For some of the players who had gotten tired of 3e and wanted a more old school game, C&C scratched that itch. But for others, while C&C was better, it wasn't exactly what they were looking for. But the real split came because of interpersonal drama. People said shit, there was rage, and the community fractured. Some stayed with C&C, but others went on to create OSRIC and the concept of the retro-clone.
Title: Re: Regarding the OSR goodness: Do you prefer the takes on OD&D, or B/X, or AD&D?
Post by: Armchair Gamer on September 13, 2020, 07:48:31 PM
  Thanks for the clarification. I prefer C&C to 'pure' old school myself, but I knew others had differed.
Title: Re: Regarding the OSR goodness: Do you prefer the takes on OD&D, or B/X, or AD&D?
Post by: mAcular Chaotic on September 13, 2020, 08:38:05 PM
I used to be a B/X purist but switched to OD&D along with some rules cribbed from earlier editions and EPT. I will say, however, that race-as-class is mechanically superior to race+class so I use race-as-class in my OD&D game.
What's so great about race as class?
Title: Re: Regarding the OSR goodness: Do you prefer the takes on OD&D, or B/X, or AD&D?
Post by: hedgehobbit on September 13, 2020, 11:16:53 PM
What's so great about race as class?
Race + Class has several limitation, mostly the fact that you have to make every race balanced with every other race as well as make every class balance with every other class. Similarly, it also means that every elf has the same racial abilities as every other elf and that every fighter has the same class abilities as every other fighter.


If you roll race and class into one thing, then the DM has much more flexibility in creating this "racial class" to vary the powers and abilities this specific class gets. So a dwarven fighter might have a completely different set of racial abilities than a dwarven runesmith given the two character's different background. It also allows you to much more easily add exotic character types, such as giants, as you can control things like XP per level, hit points, ability score modifiers, and to-hit numbers.


It's also easier on the players as they don't have to worry if a specific race+class combo is under or over powered.
Title: Re: Regarding the OSR goodness: Do you prefer the takes on OD&D, or B/X, or AD&D?
Post by: Snowman0147 on September 13, 2020, 11:32:06 PM
My only complaint is that the races have limited level caps. 
Title: Re: Regarding the OSR goodness: Do you prefer the takes on OD&D, or B/X, or AD&D?
Post by: Brad on September 14, 2020, 11:16:09 AM
[What's so great about race as class?
Forces an anthropocentric game, which tend to be less whimsical/Forgotten Realms and more S&S/Tolkien-esque. You can run a very good LotR game using straight B/X, just assume that Legolas didn't bring his spell-book and Gandalf is a DM character. For a Conan game, only allow fighters and thieves as PCs.


Also, it greatly simplifies character creation, which is a boon when you have players who are uninterested in anything besides the game itself, i.e., don't really care to create the most mechanically powerful character.
Title: Re: Regarding the OSR goodness: Do you prefer the takes on OD&D, or B/X, or AD&D?
Post by: Steven Mitchell on September 14, 2020, 11:48:25 AM
I really only have one problem with race as class:  It moves design work from the game author to the GM in a particular place that in theory I would enjoy but in practice I don't.  That is, I get the idea and even approve of it conceptually.  But as soon as I'm the GM needing to make up new classes in such a system, the first thing I want to do is put on my game designer hat and build from the ground up something that doesn't involve me at that step.

Partly it is because I'm just wired that way, and partly it is because the kind of classes I typically want don't necessarily have all the advantages listed for race as class.  Heck, I don't even like "race" as race + culture in AD&D, never mind having the class in there too.  It's probably the main thing I don't like about Rules Compendium D&D, even though it is otherwise in my top 2 favorite editions.
Title: Re: Regarding the OSR goodness: Do you prefer the takes on OD&D, or B/X, or AD&D?
Post by: mAcular Chaotic on September 14, 2020, 01:09:10 PM
What exactly did a race like "elf" get, that makes them different from just a race/class combo?
Title: Re: Regarding the OSR goodness: Do you prefer the takes on OD&D, or B/X, or AD&D?
Post by: PencilBoy99 on September 14, 2020, 04:12:41 PM
I own a bunch of these things.


I like LOTFP which is a B/X version.
I've always thought Castles and Crusades looked cool. I played it once and it was fun.
LL / Advanced always seemed like a very clean but still traditional version.
I own L&D but have never run it. I was afraid one person would roll a noble of some type and everyone else would be a drone.
Title: Re: Regarding the OSR goodness: Do you prefer the takes on OD&D, or B/X, or AD&D?
Post by: PencilBoy99 on September 14, 2020, 04:14:15 PM
Also agree that Race as Class is great. Getting rid of it was part of the long slide to D&D games being a circus carnival (which is fine but I don't want to play or run that). LL and ACKS both have subclasses for the race as class that still give variety.
Title: Re: Regarding the OSR goodness: Do you prefer the takes on OD&D, or B/X, or AD&D?
Post by: Crusader X on September 14, 2020, 05:14:22 PM
Also agree that Race as Class is great. Getting rid of it was part of the long slide to D&D games being a circus carnival (which is fine but I don't want to play or run that). LL and ACKS both have subclasses for the race as class that still give variety.
Dyson Logos also created some very nice d12 Labyrinth Lord subclasses, for both regular and Advanced LL.  These really do a fine job of giving a little more variety to the seven standard B/X classes.
Title: Re: Regarding the OSR goodness: Do you prefer the takes on OD&D, or B/X, or AD&D?
Post by: Pat on September 14, 2020, 08:25:25 PM
What exactly did a race like "elf" get, that makes them different from just a race/class combo?
That's a valid criticism. Race-as-class is seriously underutilized in Basic D&D. The combos should be unique, not just class X + class Y + a teeny bit of universal generic raciness, or slightly tweawed class X. The classes should be tweaked, for each race. The spell lists and even methods of casting might be unique. The race abilities would also vary, based on class.

The standard elf class seems to represent a high or noble elf, equally adept with sword and glamourie, the type to become a lord or lady of an elfhill. But they should have a custom spell list, more ghosts and shadows than magic-user mach 2. The halfling is basically the proto-sheriff class, but there should also be room for a burglar. The dwarf is simply a vertically impaired fighter, but might get tweaks like being less impaired in heavy armor. And so and so forth, with at least 2-3 options for each race.

Creating new classes in Basic is trivial, so it shouldn't be a real barrier. The greatest difficulty would be interesting ideas that reflect strong archetypes, and custom spell lists.
Title: Re: Regarding the OSR goodness: Do you prefer the takes on OD&D, or B/X, or AD&D?
Post by: Philotomy Jurament on September 15, 2020, 08:05:37 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't OSRIC originate as a reaction to what people saw as the over-cautious and overly compromised approach of Castles & Crusades to using the OGL to go 'old school'?


I'd say OSRIC came about because a segment of the "old school" crowd was expecting one thing (i.e., a true clone, or as close to that as is legally possible), and C&C turned out to not be that thing. I think it was disappointment with the direction C&C took with its design choices, more than anything else.
Title: Re: Regarding the OSR goodness: Do you prefer the takes on OD&D, or B/X, or AD&D?
Post by: Spinachcat on September 15, 2020, 09:57:31 PM
I view Castles & Crusades as an excellent 3rd edition of AD&D. Maybe I'm unfamiliar with the originally design goals and early discussions, but it seems to me that Troll Lords were trying to create their RPG (ala Palladium Fantasy), but compatible with TSR settings/adventures, etc.

As for the "best OSR takes", I prefer OD&D as the base because its getting back to the rawness of the primary text. Then, the authors can go in whatever direction they imagine versus being limited by what is expected by BX or AD&D.

However, my best advice to any OSR author is to ignore all the previous editions (as written) and just capture the spirit of YOUR game using whatever elements of previous editions speak most to you.

I reject the idea that every OSR book has to be "TSR compatible". It does if you are selling a retroclone, but if you're just doing an Old School-Inspired retro-whatever, then fly and be free.

 
Title: Re: Regarding the OSR goodness: Do you prefer the takes on OD&D, or B/X, or AD&D?
Post by: EOTB on September 15, 2020, 11:11:11 PM
Always AD&D for me.  The simplicity of B/X bores me.  That's not a value statement.  I get why many people want more straightforward math that allows them to concentrate on the fantasy part.  But I'm more of the wargamer/fantasy cross, so all of Gygax's tweaks and rules idiosyncrasies are on my wavelength.
Title: Re: Regarding the OSR goodness: Do you prefer the takes on OD&D, or B/X, or AD&D?
Post by: Johndesmarais on September 17, 2020, 07:05:59 PM
The retro clones that I gravitate towards are all based on B/X.
Title: Re: Regarding the OSR goodness: Do you prefer the takes on OD&D, or B/X, or AD&D?
Post by: PencilBoy99 on September 18, 2020, 10:45:57 AM
I view Castles & Crusades as an excellent 3rd edition of AD&D. Maybe I'm unfamiliar with the originally design goals and early discussions, but it seems to me that Troll Lords were trying to create their RPG (ala Palladium Fantasy), but compatible with TSR settings/adventures, etc.


I always thought C&C looked awesome. How does it play?
Title: Re: Regarding the OSR goodness: Do you prefer the takes on OD&D, or B/X, or AD&D?
Post by: Dimitrios on September 18, 2020, 11:19:46 AM
I'd say OSRIC came about because a segment of the "old school" crowd was expecting one thing (i.e., a true clone, or as close to that as is legally possible), and C&C turned out to not be that thing. I think it was disappointment with the direction C&C took with its design choices, more than anything else.


That pretty much describes me. I was excited by C&C when it came out, and after playing it for a bit felt like it was almost my ideal version of D&D. And then I realized that my ideal version was AD&D1e. 8)
Title: Re: Regarding the OSR goodness: Do you prefer the takes on OD&D, or B/X, or AD&D?
Post by: Brad on September 18, 2020, 11:33:31 AM
I always thought C&C looked awesome. How does it play?
Like AD&D but a simplified d20 version, if that makes any sense. While I'd rather play AD&D or Labyrinth Lord, C&C is brain-dead easy overall, especially for new gamers. Combat is easy to run, skill checks/saving throws are easy to do, ability checks are easy, etc. You can explain how to do everything in about two seconds: roll as high as you can on a d20 and add one of these numbers. That's it. But it's not 3.X or Pathfinder or whatever, classes are very rigid, not a bunch of fiddly nonsense. Also, there is a clear distinction between spellcasters and martial classes; paladins, rangers, and bards cannot cast any spells, which is either good or bad, depending on the situation.
Title: Re: Regarding the OSR goodness: Do you prefer the takes on OD&D, or B/X, or AD&D?
Post by: Atsuku Nare on September 18, 2020, 04:56:08 PM
I have to admit I've gravitated toward B/X clones mostly, the best example being Adventurer, Conqueror, King system. With the Players Compendium you have a way to build infinite classes if the ones in the main rulebook don't cover the load enough. And they get pretty detailed, as well as having a bunch of premade ones just to expand what covered.


(I call 'em out on the No Halflings things, but even that's corrected in the Heroes Handbook, or you could just make up your version of hobbit from the PC easily enough.)


The whole game shows how you can pull B/X apart by the bolts and the core structure underneath is really mechanically sound. Alexander Macris shows how the whole thing works and makes something of real beauty if it's close to what you're looking for.


For other games, I've been attracted to Swords & Wizardry with its One Baleful Saving Throw for a while now, and may try to throw it into the rotation sometime. I also like some of Lamentation of the Flame Princess with its skill class and inventory, as well as the Summon-Of-Doom as a first level wizard spell. If I ever run Carcosa it'll probably be with that.
Title: Re: Regarding the OSR goodness: Do you prefer the takes on OD&D, or B/X, or AD&D?
Post by: old guy on September 20, 2020, 03:56:27 PM
I am a basic/expert guy and my go to retro clone is Labyrinth Lord.
Title: Re: Regarding the OSR goodness: Do you prefer the takes on OD&D, or B/X, or AD&D?
Post by: Thorn Drumheller on September 20, 2020, 09:35:33 PM

Forces an anthropocentric game, which tend to be less whimsical/Forgotten Realms and more S&S/Tolkien-esque. You can run a very good LotR game using straight B/X, just assume that Legolas didn't bring his spell-book and Gandalf is a DM character. For a Conan game, only allow fighters and thieves as PCs.


Also, it greatly simplifies character creation, which is a boon when you have players who are uninterested in anything besides the game itself, i.e., don't really care to create the most mechanically powerful character.
Oh this. So much this. Bolded by me. This is what I love about it.