Just as the title says.  I've heard of OSRIC but not sure what else there is.

Quote from: Xanther;380864Just as the title says.  I've heard of OSRIC but not sure what else there is.

Specifically Advanced Dungeons & Dragons or any pre-WotC Dungeons & Dragons?

OSRIC is the definitive AD&D 1e clone. It's supposed to be AD&D 1e with saner layout, minus the trademark Gygaxian purple prose (admittedly a deal-breaker for some people).

Labyrinth Lord Advanced Edition Companion is a BECMI D&D/AD&D 1e mashup. Which is to say, it takes Labyrinth Lord (a BECMI retro-clone) and introduces several elements from AD&D 1e.

I'm not aware of any AD&D 2e retro-clones, but I'm fairly sure there must be people out there working on it.

2nd Edition AD&D is being worked on here.

http://feysquare.com/

It called For Gold and Glory

The current release is here.
http://feysquare.com/?page_id=3

Both C&C and HM4 are pretty close to AD&D but aren't exactly clones.

For replicating AD&D First Ed specifically, you got OSRIC, and an Advanced Companion or some such for Labyrinth Lords, which basically modifies the rules of LL (based on Moldvay/Cook) to make them AD&D-like.

If you're asking more generally about retroclones, here's a post I put together some time ago:

Here's how it went:

1974 - Original D&D, or "OD&D", with only three character classes (Cleric, Fighting Man and Magic User), weapons all deal d6 damage, all hit dice are d6, and so on, so forth. It was actually a game based on Chainmail, the Medieval Miniatures Wargame which included a "Fantasy" supplement to mimic battles from Lord of the Rings and other sources of Fantasy Fiction. It is from Dave Arneson's evolution of Chainmail involving the Fantasy supplements and a totally new way of playing the game (players playing a single "Hero" instead of an army or squad, exploring dungeons, etc) that both he and Gary Gygax conceived OD&D. The original rules thus strongly assume that you're familiar with Chainmail, to begin with, which can lead to all sorts of criticisms today (the game is incomprehensible, has bits and pieces missing, is confusing etc).
Clone: Swords & Wizardry White Box.

1975+ - The Supplements to OD&D, which each add variations to the core games rules and/or bits and pieces to it. With the Supplement I - Greyhawk, you've got suddenly "Thieves" and "Paladins", the damage of weapons is expressed using different types of polyhedral dice... and so on so forth. With Supplement II - Blackmoor, you've got the Monk, and the Assassin... the game evolves, bit by bit, to the point that if you were to use OD&D with all the Supplements, you'd pretty much play what AD&D ended up being.
Swords & Wizardry Core Rules is a clone of OD&D (1974) plus selected elements from Supplements, Greyhawk, mostly. It includes, for instance, the polyhedral damage dice.

1977 - Basic D&D, known as Holmes D&D, which is designed as an introduction to the soon-to-come Advanced D&D.

1978 - AD&D.
Clone: OSRIC.

1981 - "Holmes" D&D is revised primarily by Tom Moldvay. It becomes known as "Moldvay/Cook", "B/X" D&D. It is by this time pretty much a game onto itself, apart from AD&D.
Clone: Labyrinth Lords.

1983 - Moldvay/Cook Basic D&D is revised once more, and becomes the colored boxed sets known as Mentzer D&D, or BECMI D&D (Basic Expert Companion Master Immortal). It's a game completely apart from AD&D, and the two games are fully marketed separately. Much much later, all the boxed sets but Immortals are compiled into a single reference volume, called the Rules Cyclopedia.

The only thing I will note about OSRIC (and to a lesser extent S&W) is that it lacks some minutiae about gameplay that Labyrinth Lord/Advanced Edition covers, such as oil flasks being used as grenade weapons, Spells Known description and explanation, some detail in spells about components, etc.

OSRIC is definitely cleaner and great if you're already an AD&D enthusiast (through playing or just having the original books and discussing how bits work), but I find that LL/AEC, while lacking some extra detail, does a better job of actually explaining how the game works in practice.

I find myself in the opposite camp, in the sense that I would favor OSRIC as an in-game aid to AD&D, rather than LL/AEC, because the later presents something that looks and seems like AD&D, while not being AD&D, while OSRIC, but for a few details (like the lack of monks or AC vs. WP table), *is* AD&D through and through.

It's like OSRIC tries to emulate AD&D while LL/AEC tries to emulate how AD&D was perceived.

Oh, I realize that, I just mean I think LL/AEC covers the basics a bit better, whereas OSRIC is written with the assumption that you will defer to (and understand) AD&D when it doesn't cover something in great detail (or at all).

*nod*

Two different clones, two different audiences. Everyone's happy. Hopefully.

Excellent run-down from Benoist.

Quote from: Benoist;380959I find myself in the opposite camp, in the sense that I would favor OSRIC as an in-game aid to AD&D, rather than LL/AEC, because the later presents something that looks and seems like AD&D, while not being AD&D, while OSRIC, but for a few details (like the lack of monks or AC vs. WP table), *is* AD&D through and through.

True.

More specifically, I'd say LL AEC reads and plays a lot like BECMI D&D, with elements from AD&D 1e tacked on.

I say that because I used to run RC D&D with a bunch of AD&D 2e "grafts" and the result was remarkably similar.

Thanks everyone for the information.  I'll have to look into LL.

Looking at the date, it really has been a while since I had time to post.