I'm in the market for old school (or old-school like) products and would like some recommendations.

To help, here are a crop of old school products that I like: Talislanta, Atlantis, Palladium Fantasy 1st Edition, Tekumel, Wilderlands of High Fantasy, City State of the Invincible Overlord, Undermountain and Greyhawk Ruins (for the dungeon maps), Mazes and Minotaurs, B/X D&D, Castle and Crusades, Fantastic Treasures I and II, Monsters of Myth and Legend I, II, and III. I also like what I saw in Renegade Crowns and would totally use it for a WHQ game.

Now, what I don't want are any adventure scenarios, but if there are a lot of really good maps of dungeons or wilderness, I'd be willing to buy.

So, with that said, what should I get?

Classic Traveller.

The Basic Fantasy RPG -- the Lulu hardcovers and perfect-bound softcovers are both very nice (the free PDF is. . . well. . . free). The system itself is to Moldvay BD&D what C&C is to AD&D, with some slightly more balanced math behind the scenes. Note that I did not design this game, though I am a huge fan.

Quote from: jdrakehThe Basic Fantasy RPG -- the Lulu hardcovers and perfect-bound softcovers are both very nice (the free PDF is. . . well. . . free). The system itself is to Moldvay BD&D what C&C is to AD&D, with some slightly more balanced math behind the scenes. Note that I did not design this game, though I am a huge fan.

I'll back him up on this one.  Really has that old school game feel just oozing out of it.  It is really similiar to the old red box D&D set in all the good ways.  A little improvements here and there but nothing crazy.  Thinking of switching my fantasy game over to using the system.

You already mentioned CSIO and C&C, which would have been my recommendations.
:cool:

Quote from: jdrakeh... The system itself is to Moldvay BD&D what C&C is to AD&D, with some slightly more balanced math behind the scenes...

You've claimed this a few times, without explanation.  What is 'unbalanced' about the 'math' in C&C?  Why is BFRPG 'more balanced'?
:confused:

Quote from: AkrasiaYou've claimed this a few times, without explanation.  What is 'unbalanced' about the 'math' in C&C?  Why is BFRPG 'more balanced'?
:confused:

The die probabilities of the SIEGE engine aren't balanced against the special abilities of characters very well. It isn't immediately obvious, thuogh you'll know it as soon as it shows up in play -- in my C&C game last Summer we had a non-Rogue with the right primes who could was far better at doing Rogue-like things than the Rogue himself, despite the fact that both characters were of the same level.

I know there is a rule that hinders characters of a given class from attempting to perform actions that mimic the abilities of another given class, though it doesn't do much to address the aforementioned issue until a character has accumulated several levels. At this point in time, the rule in question will start to have a very noticeable effect, as the character attempting to perform such an action will have no better chance of successfully undertaking it than a Level 0 character would. Indeed, the more levels that such a character gains, the more noticeably crippled they are in this respect.

Let's call this rule what it is -- a poorly implemented attempt to reconcile character special abilities with the core resolution mechanic while protecting class niches. It actually does a pretty good job of protecting class niches, though it comes at the cost of totally failing to reconcile the aforementioned special abilities with the core resolution mechanic.

At first, I thought the that The Basic Fantasy RPG had the same problem, much to my disappointment. Upon a closer look, a character of X class always has a slight edge (over characters of another class at the same level) when performing class-related actions. The Thief with his percentile-based special abilities, for instance, will always havea  roughly 10%-15% better chance of picking a lock than the non-thief character who tries the same thing. The non-thief, however, gets better at performing these actions as he or she gains levels -- just never as good as the actual Thief. For me, this kind of mathematical balance is far more desireable than the hand-waving approach that C&C takes.

Then you get into experience rewards -- BFRPG uses a single advancement track against which the various PC abilities are weighted (or seem to be weighted), where C&C uses individual advancement tracks for each class that don't seem to be particularly well-balanced (if balanced at all) against the others. Again, this isn't immediately obvious, though in extended play of C&C I have found that it creeps up and causes some characters to advance far more quickly than others, despite experience rewards being roughly indentical.

Lots of 'little' stuff like this.

For some folks, having wildly divergent levels of power amongst party members isn't a big deal, nor is having to explain why only trained Rogues can climb sheer walls or move silently indoors with any level of noticeable proficiency. For me these 'little' things are indicative of rushed design and do get in the way of actual play (both for me and most of the people that I play with).

I know of a couple newer fantasy products with that old school feel.

Fantasy Imperium

Legends of Kralis  (Though the site for FMI seems to have been suspended.  Hmm.)

Or, if you like free stuff, you can always Google for "Gods & Monsters" or "Mazes and Minotaurs".  You just may be surprised.

EDIT: Apologies for this tangent.  I'd be happy to take this discussion to another thread, if necessary.  

Quote from: jdrakehThe die probabilities of the SIEGE engine aren't balanced against the special abilities of characters very well. It isn't immediately obvious, thuogh you'll know it as soon as it shows up in play -- in my C&C game last Summer we had a non-Rogue with the right primes who could was far better at doing Rogue-like things than the Rogue himself, despite the fact that both characters were of the same level.

This situation could only arise IF the CK actually allows non-Rogues to try to 'mimic' Rogue abilities (this is a matter for CK discretion -- I know that I certainly would not allow non-Rogues to use the back attack, cant, decipher script, traps, and sneak attack abilities), and the Rogue does not choose the relevant Prime for the ability in question (since most Rogue abilities are Dex-based, this will possibly apply to only 3 abilities at most, of which 2 I would not allow non-rogues to use in any case).  But frankly, if a non-rogue happens to be better than a rogue in 1-3 abilities at a low levels, that doesn't bother me much.

Quote from: jdrakehLet's call this rule what it is -- a poorly implemented attempt to reconcile character special abilities with the core resolution mechanic while protecting class niches. It actually does a pretty good job of protecting class niches, though it comes at the cost of totally failing to reconcile the aforementioned special abilities with the core resolution mechanic.

IME, the rule is not a 'poorly implemented' one at all -- in practice it works extremely well.  It was also the product of extensive playtesting.

Quote from: jdrakehAt first, I thought the that The Basic Fantasy RPG had the same problem, much to my disappointment. Upon a closer look, a character of X class always has a slight edge (over characters of another class at the same level) when performing class-related actions. The Thief with his percentile-based special abilities, for instance, will always havea  roughly 10%-15% better chance of picking a lock than the non-thief character who tries the same thing. The non-thief, however, gets better at performing these actions as he or she gains levels -- just never as good as the actual Thief. For me, this kind of mathematical balance is far more desireable than the hand-waving approach that C&C takes.

Non-thieves can use thief abilities in BFRPG?  That's news to me (although it's been months since I looked at those rules).  Where in the rules is this covered?  

Quote from: jdrakehThen you get into experience rewards -- BFRPG uses a single advancement track against which the various PC abilities are weighted (or seem to be weighted), where C&C uses individual advancement tracks for each class that don't seem to be particularly well-balanced (if balanced at all) against the others. Again, this isn't immediately obvious, though in extended play of C&C I have found that it creeps up and causes some characters to advance far more quickly than others, despite experience rewards being roughly indentical.

I don't understand this at all.  Both BFRPG and C&C have classes with different 'advancement tracks'.  Both justify the different experience point requirements with reference to the different abilities of the classes in question.  There is a formula for the C&C 'advancement tracks'.  So I'm not sure what the difference is here.  

A rogue will progress more quickly than a wizard in C&C.  Likewise, a thief will progress more quickly than a magic-user in BFRPG.

I've got nothing against BFRPG, but it looks to me like you're inventing reasons for preferring it over C&C.  If you simply like BFRPG better, that's fine, but I don't see any reason for thinking that it is the result of greater foresight and/or playtesting than C&C.

I highly recommend Tunnels & Trolls. It's probably the ultimate old school beer'n'pretzels game. Fast, whimsical but can be played fairly straight, and on the presentation side there is cool art and a nice politically incorrect vibe, if that floats your boat.

good gaming to you,
The_Shadow
(aka TheShadow...)

Quote from: DeadUematsuSo, with that said, what should I get?

If you live in the US, I'll send you a couple of extra Old School games. Just PM me your address.

Quote from: AkrasiaEDIT: Apologies for this tangent.  I'd be happy to take this discussion to another thread, if necessary.  

Given your response here, I think that would be pretty fruitless.

QuoteThis situation could only arise IF the CK actually allows non-Rogues to try to 'mimic' Rogue abilities. . .

This issue that you get into here is that actions as mundane as climbing are character special abilities in C&C. Ruling that only Rogues (and Rangers) can climb things doesn't make a lot of sense. That said, the actual rules as written don't dicsuss this option of yours, IIRC. They, instead, let non-classed characters attempt actions that mimic class abilities, penalizing such characters by denying them their Level add when rolling.

Quote. . . and the Rogue does not choose the relevant Prime for the ability in question. . .

This is true, though. . . if a Rogue and a non-Rogue both choose Dexterity (the relevant Prime), they both gain the same benefits from it. So, assuming that a rogue and a non-rogue character of the same level both have Dexterity as a Prime, the only thing (if using the actual RAW) that would differentiate the Rogue's climbing attempt from the non-Rogue's climbing attempt is that the non-Rogue doesn't get to add their level to the die roll.

In this example, both characters roll for the same target number on a d20, so if the non-Rogue has any other factors working in his or her favor and the Rogue does not, they automatically outclass the rogue in terms of likelyhood of success. In my game, this was pretty much what happened. As you (and I) both note, this will change once charcters accumulate three or four levels, after which point in time a classed character gains a great deal of upward mechanical inertia due to the non-classed character rarely (if ever) improving in their use of a skill that mimics a class ability.

Which, again, introduces another problem -- namely that characters who don't possess a class ability for some mundane action such as climbling will forever suck at it. And since C&C doesn't include (to the best of my recollection) rules for multi-classed characters by default, fixing this problem is entirely up to the consumer.

QuoteNon-thieves can use thief abilities in BFRPG?

Did I say that? No. What I did say was that non-Thief characters in BFRPG can attempt to perform actions that mimic class abilities (e.g., climbing) much as they can in C&C. The difference here is that, in BFRPG, rather than levy a penalty for such an action attempt, the non-Thief character rolls a d20 versus a target number (based on character level) while the Thief rolls their % skill. This is where that math that I've been talking about comes into play.

In BFRPG, the Thief's player rolling the % dice has a roughly 10%-15% better chance of successfully climbing something than a non-Thief character of the same level. More importantly, however, since both the target number that the non-Thief character's player must roll greater than decreases with level gains, as does the % value that the Thief character's player must roll less than, both characters learn to do these things better over time.

In the end, however, the Thief character will always have the edge when doing thiefly things. Unlike in C&C, no poor player choices during character gen will change this reality, nor is the GM left having to house-rule away weirdness like non-classed characters being unable to learn how to perform certain mundane actions.

QuoteI don't understand this at all.  Both BFRPG and C&C have classes with different 'advancement tracks'.  Both justify the different experience point requirements with reference to the different abilities of the classes in question.  There is a formula for the C&C 'advancement tracks'.  So I'm not sure what the difference is here.

Sorry, you have every right to be confused here. I was thinking of something totally different (a totally different game, in fact -- I've been busy reading Advanced Quick20 over the weekend).

QuoteI've got nothing against BFRPG, but it looks to me like you're inventing reasons for preferring it over C&C.

The experience thing aside, I'm not inventing anything (and I swear that was unintentional). I've provided some specific exmples that support what I'm talking about, as have you, perhaps unwittingly (i.e., your earlier assertion that, in order to alleviate the first problem that I mentioned, the CK must implement a house rule).

QuoteIf you simply like BFRPG better, that's fine, but I don't see any reason for thinking that it is the result of greater foresight and/or playtesting than C&C.

I don't know, I think the fact that C&C requires house rules to address certain issues (again, several of which I've outlined above and you've been kind enough to lend credence to) while BFRPG doesn't speaks highly to the amount of thought and testing that went into both games (or at least the understanding of dice probabilities that went into both games).

I'm not saying that C&C is a bad system, mind you. What I'm saying is that it's not perfect -- and I know that you're pretty firmly on record as refusing to admit that it's anything less than. This being the case, I really don't see this discussion going anywhere productive.

I'll say that I dislike X about C&C, cite specific examples of why, and you'll ignore all of the specifics that I provide, claiming that they don't exist or that the implementartion of house rules retroactively removes them from the RAW. We've pretty much danced this dance before, elsewhere.

I know from past conversations that you see nebulously defined rules as a feature, not a bug. And that's cool. You should, however, be aware that many people desire well-defined rules and that C&C doesn't fulfill this desire very well, while other games (e.g., D&D 3.5, BFRPG, etc) do.

Quote from: jdrakeh... That said, the actual RAW don't dicsuss this option of yours, IIRC. They, instead, let non-classed characters attempt actions that mimic class abilities, penalizing such characters by denying them their Level add when rolling...

Your house-rules aren't part of C&C and, thus, have little if anything to do with this thread.

Um, sorry, but this is not my 'house-rule'!

From p. 112 of the PH (2nd printing):

"There will be times when a player will want a character to attempt an action that intrudes in the realm of the class ability of another character class.  For example, a fighter might wish to open a lock ...  It is up to the Castle Keeper to decide if such an action is even possible.  In general, it is recommended that a Castle Keeper should disallow a character a chance of success in attempting a non-class abilitiy.
...
It is important to note that the abilities of each class have the best results when used by only that class.  A rogue can move silently, with an absolute absence of sound.  A fighter, therefore, should onlybe able to move very quietly, even with a successful roll."

 

Quote from: jdrakeh...  
In BFRPG, the Thief's player rolling the % dice has a roguhly 10%-15% better chance of successfully climbing something than a non-Thief character of the same level. More importantly, however, since both the target number that the non-Thief character's player must roll greater than decreases with level gains, as does the % value that the Thief character's player must roll less than, both characters learn to do these things better over time.

Okay, but I'm still curious to know where in the BFRPG rules this is stated.

Quote from: jdrakeh...
 I'm not saying that C&C is a bad system, mind you. What I'm saying is that it's not perfect and I know that you're pretty firmly on record as refusing to admit that it's anything less than...

:confused:
WTF?  Are you kidding?  There are many rules in C&C that I don't like!  Barbarians suck, the fighter's 'combat dominance' ability is too weak, etc.  The game is far from perfect IMO.  (I still like it, of course!)

Quote from: jdrakeh...
We've pretty much danced this dance before, elsewhere...

:confused:
We have?  Where?  When?

Quote from: DeadUematsuI'm in the market for old school (or old-school like) products and would like some recommendations.

...

Now, what I don't want are any adventure scenarios, but if there are a lot of really good maps of dungeons or wilderness, I'd be willing to buy.

So, with that said, what should I get?

Ready Ref Sheets from Judges Guild is a handy little supplement full of great random tables; collected from other JG products and supplemented with new additions. You can usually get it for under $5 on eBay.

If you want lots and lots of maps, Village Book I-II., Castle Book I.-II., Island Book and Temple Book, all from JG, are universally great and chock full of blank old school maps. I think you can even buy PDFs somewhere.

Quote from: DeadUematsuNow, what I don't want are any adventure scenarios

Well, if you change your mind I have these for sale cheap:

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=328573

For an extra $2, I'll throw in a ring bound copy of Basic Fantasy (because, well, it really sucks compared to REAL basic D&D...but I feal guilty just throwing it away).