Quote from: JimLotFP;316198I thought this was the entire and only point of a "clone" game. You are playing the original, with the legal bits filed off.

I think the point of OSRIC, which sort of started all this, was to file enough of the legal bits off that you could write a new AD&D module or sourcebook, that would be fully compatible with AD&D, but if a lawyer came knocking at your door point to OSRIC as what your module was based on.

I think people actually playing a game with OSRIC as their rulebook was a bit of an unexpected turn of events.

Quote from: RPGObjects_chuck;316219I think the point of OSRIC, which sort of started all this, was to file enough of the legal bits off that you could write a new AD&D module or sourcebook, that would be fully compatible with AD&D, but if a lawyer came knocking at your door point to OSRIC as what your module was based on.

I think people actually playing a game with OSRIC as their rulebook was a bit of an unexpected turn of events.

This was indeed the point of OSRIC, and the somewhat surprising turn of events that followed.

Quote from: ColonelHardisson;316215And neither does fewer rules.

Yup. Depends on the particular end user we're talking about (aka personal tastes).

Quote from: RPGObjects_chuck;316219I think the point of OSRIC, which sort of started all this, was to file enough of the legal bits off that you could write a new AD&D module or sourcebook, that would be fully compatible with AD&D, but if a lawyer came knocking at your door point to OSRIC as what your module was based on.

I think people actually playing a game with OSRIC as their rulebook was a bit of an unexpected turn of events.

Same thing. There is no real difference between playing an "OSRIC" module with AD&D rules is really no different than playing an AD&D module with OSRIC rules.

But as there have been products mentioning direct compatibility, the publishing angle of the clones might be completely unnecessary.

Well there is a difference in the sense that, originally, OSRIC wasn't intended to be a republication of AD&D or to serve as a rulebook, even. It was just the equivalent of a SRD for people who intended to publish new 1e material.

In other words, the target audience of OSRIC originally was the professional and would-be professional publishing game materials, not the gamer at the table.

What you say is true Jim, nonetheless, but that gamers themselves started to use the OSRIC documents at their game table as essentially a cleaned up layout of the rules of AD&D was a somewhat unexpected turn of events.

Quote from: ColonelHardisson;316215And neither does fewer rules.

I was going to say the same thing.

Yeah, OSRIC was more for publishers, and in that sense, it's worked.

I think without that safe harbor, folks would have been leery to tread those waters. The fine folks who came up with OSRIC essentially waved a flag that said "it's ok!"

Even within publishers, there's a divide over whether to treat OSRIC as a rule system, or pretend its AD&D.

Quote from: RPGObjects_chuck;316227Even within publishers, there's a divide over whether to treat OSRIC as a rule system, or pretend its AD&D.

That's just a new variation on the decades old problem of whether we're going to continue to pretend that AD&D and Basic/Expert are two different games.

Quote from: jrients;316228That's just a new variation on the decades old problem of whether we're going to continue to pretend that AD&D and Basic/Expert are two different games.

And the debate over whether we should concentrate on sourcebooks or modules.

Wow, everything old *is* new again!

Welcome to 1981 guys.

I'm in a similar position to the original poster.  I like some aspects of the old gaming experiences, but find many of the rules awkward.  The clones benefit over the originals in better organziation on the whole - no more having to look in 3 places in 2 books to fully understand a rule.  But some of the rules are too faithfully adapted for my taste, such as how saving throws are grouped and the inability to have flexible multiclassing.  
 
I've had 3 sessions of running Basic Fantasy and it's going well.  Most of my players were burned out by some of the combat complexities of 3e and foudn 4e not to their tastes.  Now that percentile strength no longer seems cool to me, I realized that Basic is a better fit.  But the combined race/class bit feels limiting and I prefer increasing AC so BFRPG is a reasonable fit.  There are a few minor things that bug me that I live with as they're minor and a few things I've tweaked.  There aren't a lot of spells, especially for clerics, so I've told the clerics that each religion has 3 unique spells that they can make up and cast without praying for.  To get away from the sameness of characters in the same class, I've put together a simple feat/skill system and it's working so far.  
 
For this game and group, they don't need a ton of tactical options.  They seem to be more into characters/plots/adventure.  So the key is a level of complexity that's simple but not at the super simple level of Risus or similar games.  There are lots of different games we could play and have fun but I thought the buy in would be easier if it has some nostalgia appeal as well.  Plus, it sped up learning.  I'm cheap so being legally freely available was another big bonus.
 
One odd thing I've noticed is that, after learning several different versions of a rule or spell, it's hard to remember what the current rule is.

Quote from: RPGPundit;316163Yup. I think its a fundamental flaw of the "retro" movement. Either you're playing a game so similar to its inspiration that might as well be playing the original, or you are playing a game so different that you're not playing anything like the original.

:confused: Your identification of a 'fundamental flaw' in the OSR is puzzling.

You fail to grasp that one of the main purposes of the 'retro-clone' systems (S&W, LL, OSRIC) is to ensure that free versions of older systems are available forever.  I'm not sure why you think that this is a 'fundamental flaw'.  It strikes me as a laudable goal, especially in light of the recent removal of all PDF versions of OOP versions of D&D by WotC.

Although the 1e AD&D books remain relatively common via e-bay (although generally of dubious physical quality), OD&D now costs 100's of dollars.  It also is hard to find decent copies of B/X D&D or the RC D&D.  The retro-clones overcome the increasing problem of scarcity with respect to OOP D&D.

Finally, it is worth mentioning that S&W is much more clearly organized and presented than 0e D&D.  Likewise, OSRIC is much better organized than 1e AD&D.  So, even if one is playing 1e AD&D, having OSRIC available is a good thing (to use as an aid, if nothing else).

Quote from: RPGPundit;316163I really hope that eventually the Old School movement clues into that, and comes to get that what you need to produce are games with an Old School design-feel, but not actually an imitator of an old game; and with modern comprehension of design and presentation.

But the OSR movement is doing this -- just check out Ruins & Ronins, which uses the S&W rules as a 'base' in order to build an 'oriental' swords & sorcery game.  Similar S&W/0e-based games are in development.

In my own case, I've used the core S&W rules as a base in order to 'build' a more 'swords & sorcery' flavoured system.  Among the things that I've done:

1. Use 'Wisdom' as a sanity score for characters (witnessing horrors can lead to a temporary, or even permanent loss, of wisdom/sanity).
2. Introduce a 'Mouser'-style version of the 'thief' class.
3. Rework the 'hit point' system.
4. Replace the magic-user and cleric classes with a single 'magician' class, that can cast any spell known.
5. Divide all spells into three categories: (a) white magic, (b) grey magic, (c) black magic.  Casting any kind of spell causes exhaustion (hit point loss); casting black magic can cause corruption (loss of wisdom/sanity).
6. Etc.

The end result is a game that differs from OD&D in many important respects -- and much more closely resembles the settings of Nehwon and Hyboria IMO -- but nonetheless clearly is built on the framework provided by 0e/S&W.

Moreover, if you ever visit the S&W forums, you will see that lots of other S&W/0eD&D players are doing similar kinds of things in their own games -- i.e., 'building' their own systems from the 'tools' provided by S&W.

Quote from: RPGPundit;316163That's what I was trying to get at with FtA!. Its not a clone, its not based on any one old-school game, its very much its own thing, and it has a smooth streamlined system, but it in every respect of feel and atmosphere firmly located in the Old-school camp.

RPGPundit

FtA! is a good game, and members of the OSR are doing similar things, i.e., building their own 'old school' games.  Most members of the OSR just choose to cleave more closely to the original D&D rules, however.  Those rules provide a kind of 'common language' for the participants in the OSR.

Quote from: Akrasia;316240You fail to grasp that one of the main purposes of the 'retro-clone' systems (S&W, LL, OSRIC) is to ensure that free versions of older systems are available forever.  I'm not sure why you think that this is a 'fundamental flaw'.  It strikes me as a laudable goal, especially in light of the recent removal of all PDF versions of OOP versions of D&D by WotC.

I hadn't thought about that. OSRIC was prescient in that respect, though I doubt even they thought Wizards would remove all their back catalog from PDF, a move I still don't completely grok on their part.

I mean, I get wanting to make things harder on pirates (though this seems a misguided way to fight them), but what does pirated copies of PHB II for 4e that have to do with Oriental Adventures for AD&D?

But I digress.

I also think the availability of new stuff for AD&D, even if "all" you're doing is more AD&D modules, makes the game more attractive.

Folks don't feel like they're alone in the wilderness, and new stuff always generates a little bump in interest, which is why companies support their new game lines.

So games like OSRIC and 4C are keeping their old games in print and providing a safe legal harbor to keep the flame stoked.

Echoing the earlier posts about OSRIC being intended as an SRD rather than as a game ... yes, it was surprising that people began actually playing it. I should say, the possibility crossed my mind, because I was definitely trying to make the presentation clearer (this is in my initial draft, which was improved by Stuart) .. the possibility crossed my mind, but I basically dismissed it as unlikely.

What I didn't realize was that because the book was organized in a more "modern" fashion, it would become a good table-reference and a good introduction for players who hadn't played the original. It makes sense in retrospect, but I didn't really predict it at all.

You can tell that it was intended as an SRD from both the name and from the fact that a lot of my clunky art was in there.

Quote from: Akrasia;316240You fail to grasp that one of the main purposes of the 'retro-clone' systems (S&W, LL, OSRIC) is to ensure that free versions of older systems are available forever.  I'm not sure why you think that this is a 'fundamental flaw'.  It strikes me as a laudable goal, especially in light of the recent removal of all PDF versions of OOP versions of D&D by WotC.

Yes, absolutely. When I wrote Labyrinth Lord I had these goals in mind:

1) Support old games by making a system emulator freely available

2) Support open gaming by making it all open game content

3) Provide an "in print" brand to hopefully spur interest in playing the game and for producing new material

It's true none of us knew WotC would pull their PDFs, but if anyone recalls we had discussed the possibility. That's why making these systems completely open under the OGL is important. No matter what I may decide to do with the "Labyrinth Lord Brand" the text is all open for everyone, forever.

Quote from: Settembrini;316175In this day and age, MechaTraveller aka Battletech has kept it´s rules from 77/84 and has prevailed against a forceful rebranding that was even worse than 4e vs D&D.

No, only the boardgame has. The 1986 RPG rules are no longer produced. Heck, the 1992 rules are not in print, either. The RPG rules in force date to just prior to the rebranding.