I'm looking for something with an AD&D 1e feel, but a slightly more streamlined system (explicitly NOT Castles & Crusades, which I now feel is too streamlined -- i.e. threw the baby out with the bathwater, but we've beaten this horse to death already).

I've downloaded LL AEC and I like it, because it takes my favorite iteration of the game (BECMI) and layers on the AD&D-ish content in a sensible manner, with very little additional complexity.

I'm not familiar with S&W Complete (not a legal free download like S&W Core) and I can't seem to find a full-fledged review. S&W Core is certainly a very streamlined (without being bland) version of OD&D, and I'd love to know how it compares to AD&D 1e (and OSRIC) and LL AEC.

So do tell me, theRPGsite, which of these should I get a print version.

That's easy. Both!

Can you handle more options/less 'streamlined' than the LL AEC? If so, S&W Complete may be for you. What it is is basically the compilation of OD&D and a number of selected elements and options that approach what the game looked like just before the publication of AD&D.

I would personally prefer S&W Complete to LL AEC, and would prefer OSRIC to both (OSRIC being for all intents and purposes 1E sans Gygax's prose, reorganized, cleaned up, with some selected elements missing, like the Monk, the Bard, Psionics, WP v. AC table, speed factors and the like). I would run all three.

The strength of S&W Complete is that it's in fact very simple to run, but includes a whole bunch of design notes, comparisons with the original games, and alternates presented as options for you to choose from, like in the case of the initiative rules, which included different approaches depending on the type of game you'd like (with inspiration from OD&D, Holmes D&D and the like). It's a great book, and it's flavor is a lot more... AD&Dish than AEC's is. AEC is Labyrinth Lord, it's got a vibe of its own with the illos and everything. S&W Complete feels more like .. Necromancer Games meets OD&D. It's really well done.

More information about S&W Complete.

I won't try to sell one over the other, since I'm obviously biased, but I'll clarify a little about what the AEC is.

Essentially, once you add the AEC you have something very much like the original white/wood grain box with supplements. If you include some of the additional optional rules, like higher (1e) hit dice and some of the other optional combat rules, you get closer to 1e in play feel but still a OD&D style to the core rules. Remember that the core LL rules are already nearly identical to the original edition rules, but character race-classes are a little different. When you add in the AEC you can keep the race-classes if you want since it is all cross compatible.

Another thing the AEC does is provide all of the core 1e spells and magic items, and most core monsters when combined with LL. SO you get the best of both worlds, the unencumbered original edition system but all the rich options of 1e.

I'd agree that the AEC has a little different feel from 1e because of the art. For example, the demon and devil art was done by Sean Aaberg, who is an artist of the underground comics sort, so there is a slightly psychedelic/otherworldly feel to some of it. Steve Zieser did much of the rest, and his style is pretty detailed and gritty.

Go with LL + AEC = mucho winnage for youse.

(...and the rules-set is compatible with Mutant Future so you can then have some of that genre-crossing madness...)

Personally, I'd opt for LL, with bits of the AEC.
 
S&W is very well written.  I read it and really understood OD&D (as distinct from other versions) for the first time. I then realized that I don't really care for OD&D.  It's too light, ability scores nearly meaningless, and just doesn't feel cohesive to me.
 
LL is very close to the Moldvay Basic that I started with.  It's also very easy to modify but has a meatier core compared to S&W.
 
Actually, I'd probably start with Basic Fantasy, which is Basic but with race distinct from class and ascending AC.  It also has quite a bit of optional material.  Though it feels like the LL developers are a bit more professional than the BF group and the that the LL material is more consistently of high quality.

Quote from: Danger;460223(...and the rules-set is compatible with Mutant Future so you can then have some of that genre-crossing madness...)

Oh yes! I'd forgotten about that.  There's also an appendix in MF to add in mutants to a standard LL game. I've been thinking of running a Isle of Dread style lost world - instead of dinosaurs, it was hit by a meteor a century ago and is crawling with strange mutants.

Quote from: Goblinoid Games;460222I'd agree that the AEC has a little different feel from 1e because of the art. For example, the demon and devil art was done by Sean Aaberg, who is an artist of the underground comics sort, so there is a slightly psychedelic/otherworldly feel to some of it. Steve Zieser did much of the rest, and his style is pretty detailed and gritty.

Yes. And just for the record, Dan: this was not a slight on my part, not in the least. I love the feel of LL, and it's actually part of the reason why I'd run the game, I think, in the way it lights up my imagination. The art's incredibly effective. It's its own thing, and it's really cool.

Interesting and insightful posts, thank you all.

Like I've posted before, I was inducted in the hobby in the heyday of AD&D 2e, though even then I was more of a D&D RC man. I am relatively new to AD&D 1e and I'd like to give the classics (either the FR 1e gray box, or the epic Temple-Slavers-Giants Greyhawk module sequence) a spin.

I'm between LL AEC and S&W Complete because I've read LL and S&W Core already, and I love both. I'm particularly fond of LL because BECMI/RC is my favorite incarnation of D&D, but I was intrigued by S&W's implementation of some concepts.

I do intend to engage in some moderate houseruling, though (e.g. giving Thieves 1d6 HD, the option to add their Dex bonus to melee attacks, and convert their class-specific skills on 1d6-roll-under rolls), so flexibility/ease of houseruling is another thing to consider (not that I'm expecting a huge difference here).

Ah, what the hell. I'm splitting hairs, ain't I? I think I'll end up buying the S&W Complete PDF and parsing it side-by-side with the LL AEC, and buy a print copy of whichever strikes my fancy. It's not like they're incredibly different systems, right?

The debate on the printed AEC's art has piqued my interest, though.

Here's the "reason why" for the proliferation of lines that so irks Pundy and others.

If it's "one or the other" exclusively, then there's always going to be someone who wants yet another very particular combination of variants packaged up as The Official Rules of Brand X. It's an endless supply of nits to pick.

OD&D was not "one or the other". It was Supplements and Dragons and Grimoires, each issue a buffet of options to mix and match as one liked or to ignore as one did not. It was all "D&D" to most gamers of my acquaintance, and the Advanced books were just convenient compilations. Holmes, Moldvay and Mentzer, too!

I recommend taking what you like from any source, and lofting the banner of "old style D&D" rather than getting hung up on this or that trademark logo or approval mark.

The precise scope of an nth-level cleric's spell-casting may vary from set to set, and one may well prefer one version to another. It does not follow that every other minor detail in someone else's "house rules" will likewise correspond to one's own vision. As I wrote above, there is an endless supply of nits to pick.

Do you really care so much about the precise scope of an nth-level cleric's spell-casting? Does it bother you greatly, for instance, that the 1st ed. AD&D Monster Manual uses OD&D standards rather than the later Players Handbook tables?

I think most people take such minor variations in stride without much worry. Who (if anyone) cannot be raised from the dead? What level can a halfling attain? Is the AC of leather armor and shield 6 (base 9) or 7 (base 10)? How does initiative work?

The fundamentals of the game remain the same. General trends (as noted back in the 1970s in an article in The Dragon) are ever toward

- more of almost everything (although TSR lagged in adding spell levels after Supplement I)

- inflation of both hit points and damage rolls, yielding finer gradients

- additional rules for special topics

This makes the game in sum more complex, and of course more so the more additions one uses. Some variants, though, simplify particular elements (or at least make them "more sensible" for some).

Quote from: Phillip;460248If it's "one or the other" exclusively, then there's always going to be someone who wants yet another very particular combination of variants packaged up as The Official Rules of Brand X. It's an endless supply of nits to pick.

OD&D was not "one or the other". It was Supplements and Dragons and Grimoires, each issue a buffet of options to mix and match as one liked or to ignore as one did not. It was all "D&D" to most gamers of my acquaintance, and the Advanced books were just convenient compilations. Holmes, Moldvay and Mentzer, too!

I recommend taking what you like from any source, and lofting the banner of "old style D&D" rather than getting hung up on this or that trademark logo or approval mark.

Excellent point, Phil.

Usually, "my D&D" is Labyrinth Lord supplemented by the D&D RC in some spots. The differences feel superficial, but I prefer LL's implementation in some parts, e.g. the 20-level spread and the saving throw matrix. While the D&D RC is an invaluable resource when it comes to subsystems like stronghold building and management, magic item creation and spell research. And the treasure tables! Don't get me started on the RC treasure table, I can go on about them for the better part of a week.

This time, though, I'm intent on tackling some of the AD&D 1e classics. What I'm looking for is something that feels like AD&D 1e to me (and to the rest of the crew) without necessarily having the same complexity. I expect and even look forward to the fact that this will take some fine-tuning. I intend to pick and choose from different editions, not to mention my own houserules. I find this a fun exercise that gives a certain character, a bit of an identity, to any given game.

Besides, I also find it useful to have at least one print copy of The Rules on the gaming table, just for occasional reference, or even bibliomantic inspiration (which is absolutely crucial for my usual seat-of-the-pants GMing style).

Quote from: The ButcherBesides, I also find it useful to have at least one print copy of The Rules on the gaming table...

When has it ever really been the case in D&D that a printed codex gave an accurate account of the rules in play? That has been very rarely, I should think! "Delete here, amend there, add this..." has been in my experience the true story -- one told only orally. The degree to which people are conscious of that fact of the matter has tended to vary far more than the fact itself.

The wonder of modern word processing and printing means that you -- and I, and every last DM -- can in theory have his own house rules published. Daniel Proctor, Matthew Finch, and so on have simply taken the further step of getting slightly commercial about it.

Quote from: Nicephorus;460224Personally, I'd opt for LL, with bits of the AEC.
 
S&W is very well written.  I read it and really understood OD&D (as distinct from other versions) for the first time. I then realized that I don't really care for OD&D.  It's too light, ability scores nearly meaningless, and just doesn't feel cohesive to me.
 
LL is very close to the Moldvay Basic that I started with.  It's also very easy to modify but has a meatier core compared to S&W.

I'm biased but these are pretty much my thoughts as well. LL has all the nostalgic coolness of red box D&D while the AEC makes it 1e compatible. Its very much like the D&D mishmash I used to play in the 80s where we took classes and such from 1e and used the red/blue box rules although LL does it a lot more smoothly.

Pete

I'm totally unbiased in every possible way, and in my capacity as a completely neutral and impartial observer, I think that if you want a system that streamlines 1e without discarding its subtlety and feel, you should go with OSRIC, which is perfection in game system form.  The system is definitive, the writing excellent, and the authors are deserving of your custom, and extremely handsome to boot.