IMHO Castles and Crusades.

Considered to be the spiritual successor of AD&D.

Quote from: Witch Hunter Siegfried on March 16, 2025, 05:27:05 AM

Quote from: ForgottenF on March 15, 2025, 10:47:52 AM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on March 15, 2025, 09:38:33 AMDolmenwood is out (or nearly out) and it looks like an improvement over OSE.

I wonder if OSE will take a hit.

I doubt it. I ran a Dolmenwood campaign recently. It's fine, but the parts that are different from regular OSE are very much tailored to the Dolmenwood setting. The new races/classes are mostly not going to be something you want to bring into your regular D&D-world game, and I don't think many people will want to make Dolmenwood their permanent gaming setting.

Reminds me of MYFAROG/ReconQuest, the only OSR game I've really tabbed through, it's also quite focused on it's theme.

Sort of. Aside from them coming from opposite ends of the political spectrum, Dolmenwood is mechanically compatible with most other OSR games. It's just the flavoring that wouldn't fit. MYFAROG is both mechanically and flavorfully incompatible with any other game I'm aware of. I don't if that's true of ReconQuest or not.

Quote from: ForgottenF on March 16, 2025, 09:07:42 AM

Quote from: Witch Hunter Siegfried on March 16, 2025, 05:27:05 AM

Quote from: ForgottenF on March 15, 2025, 10:47:52 AM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on March 15, 2025, 09:38:33 AMDolmenwood is out (or nearly out) and it looks like an improvement over OSE.

I wonder if OSE will take a hit.

I doubt it. I ran a Dolmenwood campaign recently. It's fine, but the parts that are different from regular OSE are very much tailored to the Dolmenwood setting. The new races/classes are mostly not going to be something you want to bring into your regular D&D-world game, and I don't think many people will want to make Dolmenwood their permanent gaming setting.

Reminds me of MYFAROG/ReconQuest, the only OSR game I've really tabbed through, it's also quite focused on it's theme.

Sort of. Aside from them coming from opposite ends of the political spectrum, Dolmenwood is mechanically compatible with most other OSR games. It's just the flavoring that wouldn't fit. MYFAROG is both mechanically and flavorfully incompatible with any other game I'm aware of. I don't if that's true of ReconQuest or not.

ReconQuest is essentially MYFAROG basic, same flavor but a D&D basic clone instead with more of a foucuss on Imperial play

Quote from: Spobo on March 15, 2025, 03:47:28 PMIt's not necessarily the top one or the one grabbing the most market share or anything, but it is very consistent. They put out new modules and new campaign settings fairly regularly, and Goodman Games has a good reputation and a dedicated customer base.

  I spotted some DCC books at the local Barnes & Noble yesterday, so they may have broken into bookstore distribution. (Then again, this is the same B&N where I once spotted a copy of the Wraeththu RPG, so take it with a grain of salt. )

Quote from: Man at Arms on March 16, 2025, 05:13:53 AM

Quote from: Spobo on March 15, 2025, 05:50:38 PM

Quote from: Man at Arms on March 15, 2025, 05:08:52 PM

Quote from: Spobo on March 15, 2025, 03:47:28 PM

Quote from: Man at Arms on March 15, 2025, 02:32:12 PM

Quote from: Spobo on March 15, 2025, 07:11:29 AMI think it's unclear right now whether there is one. As far as straight retroclones OSE is the top. S'mon is right that Shadowdark is the outlet for 5e players but I'm not sure how much money it makes. It's definitely the most ascendant one recently. But other than that the pie could be split any number of ways between Kevin Crawford games, DCC, Mork Borg (blech), or something else I'm not thinking of at the moment.

Is DCC really still that dominant a ruleset in the OSR market, all these years later?  I'm not a DCC hater.  I own a copy, and it's the most gonzo thing I've ever read.

It's not necessarily the top one or the one grabbing the most market share or anything, but it is very consistent. They put out new modules and new campaign settings fairly regularly, and Goodman Games has a good reputation and a dedicated customer base.

It is a unique and interesting ruleset.  I like it, but it would take a dedicated buy in from players; and it appears to be more campaign centric, than one shot centric.

More the other way around, it's extremely fun for one shots and episodic stories and harder to do with lengthy games. There's a lot of randomness and each module is a self-contained adventure that doesn't necessarily take place in the same area as any other. Unless you get the Lankhmar book or Purple Planet or one of their others that are more like campaign settings.

I guess because many things in DCC seem to be completely different takes on D&D Core Classes and Mechanics;  I assumed relearning everything in the game, was more appropriate for a campaign level of player buy in?  Is that a hurdle for a new DCC Game Master, to put a one shot together and run it?

It does have a learning curve but it's not too difficult. It has ability scores, and race as class like Basic. You roll d20s, you have hit points. It's not that far off from normal D&D expectations, the main differences being the Luck system, rolling for spellcasting, and the mighty deeds system for fighters.

Generally people start a game or get introduced with a 0 level funnel, which is simpler. Everyone starts with a randomly generated group of assorted peasants and nobodies, they get thrown into a meat grinder adventure, and then whoever survives goes to level 1. But you can run the 0 level by itself or skip it. It makes for great one shots that lead into further one shots.

There are tools like this that make it even easier to generate a batch of characters - https://purplesorcerer.com/create_party.php

I'm trying to move my home group away from 5E and towards something old school, so I have spent a lot of time recently re-reading C&C, Shadowdark, OSE, and DCC. All have some strengths and some quirks that make me not want to pick those rules, and so far none of the four have emerged in my mind as a clear winner.

DCC has a huge wealth of modules and settings to pick from, but my group is wary of the "gonzo" nature particularly the spellcasting rules. I have a shelf full of DCC stuff and have actually run a lot of it with 5E characters and it's not hard to adjust to most rules sets that I like.

Shadowdark has some interesting rules for near/close/far instead of a battle grid, has great rules about torches and lack of darkvision, but has a more limited set of classes to pick from. Unsure about the spellcasting, which has some elements similar to that of DCC. Not a lot of materials Shadowdark-specific on my shelves.

OSE is "classic" D&D, but I never really played that, and seems very sterile to read. Has a lot of the main advantages of D&D if you like race=class systems. Not a lot of OSE-specific stuff on my shelves.

C&C is (I think) what 3E ought to have been, which is a plus. I would probably house-rule parts of the SIEGE engine but that's not a problem. C&C also has a lot of material to work with, including Amazing Adventures, James Ward's "Tainted Lands," the "Haunted Highlands" setting, and more. I have a ton of C&C stuff and it is easy to adapt to any rules set.

So, C&C and DCC clearly take up a lot of my shelf space but OSE and Shadowdark are single-volume rulebooks. Continuing to read and evaluate my options. My group claims that they will play whatever I want, but they are really partial to 5E-style spellcasting and that needs to factor into my decision if I want it to be a long-term campaign. Otherwise, I spend a lot of prep time in a one-shot.

Quote from: finarvyn on March 16, 2025, 04:59:38 PMI'm trying to move my home group away from 5E and towards something old school, so I have spent a lot of time recently re-reading C&C, Shadowdark, OSE, and DCC. All have some strengths and some quirks that make me not want to pick those rules, and so far none of the four have emerged in my mind as a clear winner.

DCC has a huge wealth of modules and settings to pick from, but my group is wary of the "gonzo" nature particularly the spellcasting rules. I have a shelf full of DCC stuff and have actually run a lot of it with 5E characters and it's not hard to adjust to most rules sets that I like.

Shadowdark has some interesting rules for near/close/far instead of a battle grid, has great rules about torches and lack of darkvision, but has a more limited set of classes to pick from. Unsure about the spellcasting, which has some elements similar to that of DCC. Not a lot of materials Shadowdark-specific on my shelves.

OSE is "classic" D&D, but I never really played that, and seems very sterile to read. Has a lot of the main advantages of D&D if you like race=class systems. Not a lot of OSE-specific stuff on my shelves.

C&C is (I think) what 3E ought to have been, which is a plus. I would probably house-rule parts of the SIEGE engine but that's not a problem. C&C also has a lot of material to work with, including Amazing Adventures, James Ward's "Tainted Lands," the "Haunted Highlands" setting, and more. I have a ton of C&C stuff and it is easy to adapt to any rules set.

So, C&C and DCC clearly take up a lot of my shelf space but OSE and Shadowdark are single-volume rulebooks. Continuing to read and evaluate my options. My group claims that they will play whatever I want, but they are really partial to 5E-style spellcasting and that needs to factor into my decision if I want it to be a long-term campaign. Otherwise, I spend a lot of prep time in a one-shot.

Running OSE right now and it is fine (in addition to my Barbarians of legend game). Shadowdark has a bazillion extra options out right now if you buy Chubby Funster's Player's Companion and Gamemaster's Companion. All in all, Shadowdark is a fairly small investment for a LOT of material with these two add-ons (among others out there). I just bought the pdfs and had them printed out, which again saves money and I am not shaken if a $23 soft cover gets dinged up over a $60 book.

Thanks for the Chubby Funster tip. One of the two books is waiting for POD so I may hold off until I can get print for both, but both are in my cart at the moment.

For those who missed it, Goodman Games announced about a month ago that they had a deal in place to get distribution into Barnes & Noble stores.  So that could tilt the playing field a bit.  Whether or not DCC is really an "OSR" game is another debate as, like Shadowdark, it combines Old School with later elements & mechanics.

Quote from: Persimmon on March 16, 2025, 07:27:06 PMWhether or not DCC is really an "OSR" game is another debate as, like Shadowdark, it combines Old School with later elements & mechanics.

I feel like the use of later mechanics and ideas shouldn't disqualify a game from being "old school." For example, true old school games made use of charts where you cross-index offensive ability with defensive ability and thus generate a number for success. Taking those charts and turning them into equations seems to me like a progressive evolution that makes the game run smoother but doesn't really change the philosophy of play.

Most of the 3E-isms of DCC RPG, for example, is using the 3E SRD to make things simple. AC goes up as armor improves. Combat becomes a bonus instead of a chart. Stuff like that. Where DCC goes "off the rails" is in terms of the funky dice (although Joseph Goodman argues that in 1974 a "standard" polyhedral set was hard-to-find funky dice) and elaborate spell charts. Those are points you might argue aren't very old school, but the vast majority of the DCC RPG really is old school in style and flavor.

Shadowdark is similar in that regard, with much of the style and flavor mirroring the "Appendix N" type of literature one could read in the 1970's, but stapling onto the base system some of the same modern elements as can be found in DCC. (Ascending AC, bonuses instead of charts, roll for spell success, etc.)

I think that's why a lot of gamers classify both as "OSR" instead of "OSR adjacent" but I can see where there is a huge gray area there which prompts argument and discussion about their classification. Neither game sets out to "clone" a previous system, but instead aims to replicate a feel of the early style of play.

Quote from: finarvyn on March 16, 2025, 11:36:40 PMMost of the 3E-isms of DCC RPG, for example, is using the 3E SRD to make things simple. AC goes up as armor improves. Combat becomes a bonus instead of a chart. Stuff like that. Where DCC goes "off the rails" is in terms of the funky dice (although Joseph Goodman argues that in 1974 a "standard" polyhedral set was hard-to-find funky dice) and elaborate spell charts. Those are points you might argue aren't very old school, but the vast majority of the DCC RPG really is old school in style and flavor.

If I was going to argue that DCC isn't OSR (which, for the record, I wouldn't), I'd make that argument on the grounds of compatibility. Between the funky dice, the fort/ref/will saves and the action-die system, you could argue that DCC modules aren't immediately compatible with other OSR games. It's not that big of a deal though, really.  I've used multiple DCC modules for other games.

In my area (New Mexico) I know of groups playing Shadowdark, and the FLGSs are heavy on stocking DCC and OSE, though I'm the only one I know who's run any OSE. The DCC groups all migrated over to Shadowdark, but I assume there must be other groups out there playing these games I don't know about. Personally I'm still all for S&W Complete Revised, but admit Shadowdark has an allure to it, and is suddenly an easy sell to players locally in ways S&W has never been, unfortunately.

Quote from: ForgottenF on March 16, 2025, 11:51:04 PM

Quote from: finarvyn on March 16, 2025, 11:36:40 PMMost of the 3E-isms of DCC RPG, for example, is using the 3E SRD to make things simple. AC goes up as armor improves. Combat becomes a bonus instead of a chart. Stuff like that. Where DCC goes "off the rails" is in terms of the funky dice (although Joseph Goodman argues that in 1974 a "standard" polyhedral set was hard-to-find funky dice) and elaborate spell charts. Those are points you might argue aren't very old school, but the vast majority of the DCC RPG really is old school in style and flavor.

If I was going to argue that DCC isn't OSR (which, for the record, I wouldn't), I'd make that argument on the grounds of compatibility. Between the funky dice, the fort/ref/will saves and the action-die system, you could argue that DCC modules aren't immediately compatible with other OSR games. It's not that big of a deal though, really.  I've used multiple DCC modules for other games.

Well in D&D rulesets a spell either succeeds, fails, or else does half damage.

In DCC, there many more potential spell outcomes; reflecting either success or failure.  You really need to keep the rulebook handy, at all times.

Quote from: Man at Arms on March 17, 2025, 09:56:31 PM

Quote from: ForgottenF on March 16, 2025, 11:51:04 PM

Quote from: finarvyn on March 16, 2025, 11:36:40 PMMost of the 3E-isms of DCC RPG, for example, is using the 3E SRD to make things simple. AC goes up as armor improves. Combat becomes a bonus instead of a chart. Stuff like that. Where DCC goes "off the rails" is in terms of the funky dice (although Joseph Goodman argues that in 1974 a "standard" polyhedral set was hard-to-find funky dice) and elaborate spell charts. Those are points you might argue aren't very old school, but the vast majority of the DCC RPG really is old school in style and flavor.

If I was going to argue that DCC isn't OSR (which, for the record, I wouldn't), I'd make that argument on the grounds of compatibility. Between the funky dice, the fort/ref/will saves and the action-die system, you could argue that DCC modules aren't immediately compatible with other OSR games. It's not that big of a deal though, really.  I've used multiple DCC modules for other games.

Well in D&D rulesets a spell either succeeds, fails, or else does half damage.

In DCC, there many more potential spell outcomes; reflecting either success or failure.  You really need to keep the rulebook handy, at all times.

True, though if we're talking about using DCC modules for other games (or vice versa), I've found that even though DCC has a different spell system, most of the spells in it are the same ones from the standard D&D list, so if a module lists spells for an NPC, they're probably going to be ones you can look up in the rulebook for whatever game you're running. The only problem I had using DCC modules for Dolmenwood, for example, is that Dolmenwood actually cuts a several standard spells from the spell list. Cone of Cold is the one I remember most clearly. LOTFP would probably have the same problem, since that game cuts a fair few normally-standard spells as well.

I would still prefer Palladium Fantasy 1E over all of these.

We each have our own favorites.