Quote from: Brad on October 08, 2023, 03:48:31 PM

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament on October 06, 2023, 12:56:00 PMThe OSRIC book available from Black Blade Publishing is a very reasonably priced, single volume set of rules that I think captures AD&D better than C&C and other clone or clone-like systems I'm familiar with.

But isn't OSRIC literally just AD&D with some slight changes for publishing adventures while avoiding lawsuits? Anyway, playing OSRIC seems kinda dumb because you can play the real thing instead of a clone. I had about five copies of OSRIC and finally got rid of them all because it wasn't even a good resource for playing AD&D since nothing was identical. Contrast with OSE which can be used as a reference for B/X.

OSRIC is cheaper and for a while was far more easily available, then it became habit. I remember the day that WOTC began making PDFs available of the rulebooks. eBay didn't seem to have as many copies available years ago as in recent years.

I haven't read C&C so I can't really say I have an opinion about it.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on October 11, 2023, 09:26:55 AM
(In any case, it is curious to see the differences between OSRIC and 1e. So far I've heard: no WvA table or weapon speed, no bard/monk/psionics, XP tables, streamlined initiative, and different order of abilities).

EDIT: found this 2008 thread describing some differences and the idea of publishing 1e stuff using he OSRIC label.
https://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=32741#:~:text=Re%3A%20Diffrences%20between%201ed%2FOSRIC,-Post%20by%20Dwayanu&text=Neither%20the%20Monk%20class%20nor,perhaps%20for%20some%20other%20things.

Would it help to have a comprehensive list?

I just named a few things that are immediately obvious if you so much as try to roll up a character. Replacing encumbrance with weight and setting the conversion at 1 gp = 10 sp are a couple more, and they're once examples of pivoting to 2E aesthetics. Unlike the ordering of attributes which is trivial, these two actually do mess with the internal consistency of my world. The change in conversion rates, of course, are going to mean there's going to be a good number of items on the equipment list that will have their prices changed.

Quote from: Lunamancer on October 11, 2023, 02:11:51 PM
...they're once examples of pivoting to 2E aesthetics.

In many cases, OSRIC differences weren't an intentional (or gratuitous) pivot to 2e aesthetics, but rather an effect of using the (3.0) SRD as the OGL'd source which was then modified. I'm not claiming that's the case for all your specific examples, but I know it applies to attribute ordering, for example. There were discussions about whether to change that to match 1e ordering or not, and at the time the cautious approach won out.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament on October 10, 2023, 04:14:52 PMWell, I play AD&D, not OSRIC, so I kind of agree, although I wouldn't say it's dumb to play OSRIC. I just don't need OSRIC as a set of rules; I prefer using the original game. I think it might be useful for someone who wanted to play a "close to 1e AD&D" set of rules who didn't already own the AD&D books (or who didn't like the organization or authorial voice of the originals -- which seems unfathomable to me, but some people dislike EGG's prose). It's a lot cheaper and easier to acquire the single volume OSRIC book than to get multiple out of print AD&D books. Or to download the free PDF, if you use PDFs.

Well that's just it, though. I'd say 95% of the people who actually want to play AD&D own the original books, or at least the reprints. My entire gaming group has a copy of the PHB because I gave it to them when we started playing years ago, well before OSRIC was a thing. For that 5% who want to play AD&D and don't own the books, they might not even know OSRIC exists, and if they did and used OSRIC instead of the originals, you know some crusty ass grognards would give them a hard time about it...

Just seems like everything about OSRIC is entirely hypothetical beyond being a vehicle by which to publish AD&D adventures. For that, it's excellent. For play at a real table, ehhh. The REASON to play AD&D is for pure Gygaxian atmosphere; you remove that and you might as well play something less complex.

EDIT: Also this thread is getting derailed...it's about C&C. So editing this to include some C&C stuff.

I went through the latest edition that incorporates the higher levels from the CKG and noticed something very weird that made me go back through my older books. What the actual stat bonuses do for stuff like additional hit points, adding to melee damage, etc., are almost impossible to find. They're buried in a paragraph of text in the stat section and really never overtly referenced anywhere else. I guess I never really thought about it because I've been playing D&D for so long, but there's literally not a table anywhere with this stuff I can find. Just super weird.

Quote from: Brad on October 11, 2023, 03:41:14 PM


I went through the latest edition that incorporates the higher levels from the CKG and noticed something very weird that made me go back through my older books. What the actual stat bonuses do for stuff like additional hit points, adding to melee damage, etc., are almost impossible to find.

The section on attributes and what they are and what they modify in the game leads directly to  Attribute Modifiers explanation and table.  Same two pages in the Creating a Character Chapter.  If you read how to create a character it would be IMPOSSIBLE to not see all of it in sequence.

ATTRIBUTES section is pg 13-14.  Page 14 has the table. 

Quote from: Lunamancer on October 11, 2023, 02:11:51 PM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on October 11, 2023, 09:26:55 AM
(In any case, it is curious to see the differences between OSRIC and 1e. So far I've heard: no WvA table or weapon speed, no bard/monk/psionics, XP tables, streamlined initiative, and different order of abilities).

EDIT: found this 2008 thread describing some differences and the idea of publishing 1e stuff using he OSRIC label.
https://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=32741#:~:text=Re%3A%20Diffrences%20between%201ed%2FOSRIC,-Post%20by%20Dwayanu&text=Neither%20the%20Monk%20class%20nor,perhaps%20for%20some%20other%20things.

Would it help to have a comprehensive list?

I'd love to see a comprehensive list, yes!

But it is just curiosity, since I'm unlikely to play either game.

Quote from: Scooter on October 11, 2023, 03:54:39 PM
The section on attributes and what they are and what they modify in the game leads directly to  Attribute Modifiers explanation and table.  Same two pages in the Creating a Character Chapter.  If you read how to create a character it would be IMPOSSIBLE to not see all of it in sequence.

ATTRIBUTES section is pg 13-14.  Page 14 has the table. 

I am not talking about that table, I am talking about a table that says:

STR  - Melee combat, melee damage
INT - Number of languages
Etc.

That is all buried in a paragraph of text on page 13 and referenced nowhere else. At least the INT/WIS references to bonus spells are covered by the appropriate classes, but say STR for melee? In the combat section: "Melee occurs when two creatures engage in hand-to-hand combat. The attacker rolls a d20 and adds their bonus to hit (BtH) plus any strength modifier."

That's my point. It is almost assumed by the rules you already know this stuff. And most people do, but it's not explicit and in your face like the tables in the AD&D PHB.

Quote from: Brad on October 11, 2023, 03:41:14 PM

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament on October 10, 2023, 04:14:52 PMWell, I play AD&D, not OSRIC, so I kind of agree, although I wouldn't say it's dumb to play OSRIC. I just don't need OSRIC as a set of rules; I prefer using the original game. I think it might be useful for someone who wanted to play a "close to 1e AD&D" set of rules who didn't already own the AD&D books (or who didn't like the organization or authorial voice of the originals -- which seems unfathomable to me, but some people dislike EGG's prose). It's a lot cheaper and easier to acquire the single volume OSRIC book than to get multiple out of print AD&D books. Or to download the free PDF, if you use PDFs.

Well that's just it, though. I'd say 95% of the people who actually want to play AD&D own the original books, or at least the reprints. My entire gaming group has a copy of the PHB because I gave it to them when we started playing years ago, well before OSRIC was a thing. For that 5% who want to play AD&D and don't own the books, they might not even know OSRIC exists, and if they did and used OSRIC instead of the originals, you know some crusty ass grognards would give them a hard time about it...

Just seems like everything about OSRIC is entirely hypothetical beyond being a vehicle by which to publish AD&D adventures. For that, it's excellent. For play at a real table, ehhh. The REASON to play AD&D is for pure Gygaxian atmosphere; you remove that and you might as well play something less complex.

Another personal anecdote: I was invited to an AD&D game last year, and had to create a 5th-level PC.

I am a complete noob in AD&D, having played only other editions (Basic, 3e, 4e, 5e) for decades.

I had the 1e PHB and OSRIC and found OSRIC much easier to learn/reference, so that is what I used.

(IIRC the PHB didn't even tell me my to-hit so I couldn't fill the sheet without the DMG or soem other section of the PHB instead of characters).

So, while I do not think that are many people trying to get into AD&D 1e for the FIRST TIME in 2023, OSRIC could still be useful for those.

I think most OSRIC criticism I hear is from people who are familiar with AD&D. I have never heard someone say "I started with OSRIC, then AD&D, and would never go back".

There is a certain "my first is the best" bias, I think - but again, few people START with OSRIC anyway... And I wouldn't recommend OSRIC for someone starting with D&D or RPGs.

(BTW, unfortunately, the game was cancelled due to scheduling.)

EDIT: sorry for the de-rail folks, to get back to the theme of the thread, I think C&C is a better "simplification" of AD&D than OSRIC. I posted a comprehensive review in this thread.

C&C is also more newbie-friendly IMO, could reasonably be your first RPG.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on October 11, 2023, 04:16:10 PM
Another personal anecdote: I was invited to an AD&D game last year, and had to create a 5th-level PC.

I am a complete noob in AD&D, having played only other editions (Basic, 3e, 4e, 5e) for decades.

I had the 1e PHB and OSRIC and found OSRIC much easier to learn/reference, so that is what I used.

(IIRC the PHB didn't even tell me my to-hit so I couldn't fill the sheet without the DMG or soem other section of the PHB instead of characters).

So, while I do not think that are many people trying to get into AD&D 1e for the FIRST TIME in 2023, OSRIC could still be useful for those.

I do have a beef with pretty much every 1E character sheet ever made. I think they ask for way too much information. The to-hit tables in 1E are indeed found only in the DMG, not the PHB. The idea is the player doesn't need to know the hit tables, and you don't need it on the character sheets.

I think this is something you, as a Basic D&D fan, should be able to appreciate. Basic D&D covers character levels 1-3, and character levels 1-3 all have the same hit tables. Monsters and NPCs may vary. But the hit tables for PCs within the scope of the basic game vary neither by class nor by level. Despite the ironic fact that the Basic D&D character sheet has plastered across the bottom an entire hit table to fill out, it's not a factor by which characters are differentiated. As far as players are concerned, it's a fixed constant.

In AD&D, sure, it varies for PCs. Maybe. If the DM wants it to. It's none of the players' business. If the DM does go by the book, at name level, clerics, magic-users, and thieves are all the same hit tables, with fighters 4 points ahead of the pack. It's almost like Fighters answer the Thieves' +4 to hit while backstabbing with a 4-point advantage to hit while frontstabbing. And if the DM is running a low level game, the differences are going to be so minimal it's not going to throw anything off to ignore it entirely.

That's the beauty of 1E's design and philosophy. It provides the DM with tools to use or not use. A lot of the details, especially the ones large number of gamers don't like or don't understand, are massively beneficial to certain play styles.

Yes, I think this is an unique, interesting play style that I haven't experimented much but have often considered: leave most/all the rules for the GM and let the PCs think "fiction only".

Even when playing Basic (I played modern versions like Black Box and RC more than the original), I never considered leaving to-hit a mystery.

But I think this could be the genuine "old school" (or "Free Kriegsspiel") method. The PCs could just drop in the game with no knowledge of the system; face the "milieu" head on and learn as they go.

I think players should not need to know all the rules on principle, and I dislike the whole "system mastery" thing that 3e seemed to encourage.

[I played such a game once. We just described your actions and the GM gave us "40% chance", etc. It was an interesting experience.]

Quote from: GamerforHire on October 11, 2023, 10:55:48 AM

Quote from: Brad on October 08, 2023, 03:48:31 PM

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament on October 06, 2023, 12:56:00 PMThe OSRIC book available from Black Blade Publishing is a very reasonably priced, single volume set of rules that I think captures AD&D better than C&C and other clone or clone-like systems I'm familiar with.

But isn't OSRIC literally just AD&D with some slight changes for publishing adventures while avoiding lawsuits? Anyway, playing OSRIC seems kinda dumb because you can play the real thing instead of a clone. I had about five copies of OSRIC and finally got rid of them all because it wasn't even a good resource for playing AD&D since nothing was identical. Contrast with OSE which can be used as a reference for B/X.

OSRIC is cheaper and for a while was far more easily available, then it became habit. I remember the day that WOTC began making PDFs available of the rulebooks. eBay didn't seem to have as many copies available years ago as in recent years.

One can get the all the 1E core books hardcover for about 64-70$ when sellers are trying to sell say the 1E DMG with original cover art for about 50-70$. Unless one really wants a specific printing why buy the second when with the first one gets an entire core set brand new. It amazes me with the reprints how sellers still think it's a market before reprints were available.

Sorry I'm late to the party.  I hope 2 months isn't considered thread necromancy. 

First, I'm amazed how a thread about C&C got completely hijacked by an argument about OSRIC.  Aren't there enough such threads?

I have played or DMed about every edition.  Until very recently I had put most of my interest into OSR-type games like Labyrinth Lord, especially the Advanced version.  I loved being able to play AD&D 1e without all the cruft and rules that no one ever used anyway.  At the same time, I've appreciated the "modernisms" of 3e, PF1 and 5e.  Streamlined is always good.

In C&C I found pretty much the best of both worlds: OSR or 1e "feel" but more-modern mechanics (like ascending AC, BtH, etc.)  And it's the most extensable/"hackable" version I've ever seen!  It's been called the ""Rosetta Stone" of D&D because one can easily add features from most any edition and it still works.  So if I preferred the 3e "Ref/Fort/Will" saves (I don't), it's an easy bolt-on.  If I like the 5e spellcasting model (I Do!) it's easy to import.  And I've easily made my own tweaks that I believe address the (few) issues that people have reported.  I use a flat 15 target number and a flat +3 for primes.  Simple.

One change that I've had recommended is to not add a challenge rating to saves.  That makes it work a lot like AD&D.  Lots of stuff that can be adapted.

For people who still want feats and skills and such, there are several good options.  One was in Troll Lords' own CKG (for more 3e-type); another is in their 5e Guide to Airdhe (for more 5e-type). 

While I still keep my feet wet with 3.x, PF1 and 5e, I'm pretty much sold on C&C now.

I think what sold me on replacing D&D with C&C was the way multi-classing is handled. I was never fond of multiclassing in any edition of D&D.

The problem I have is breaking 5E players of their wretched edition.

I can't call 5e "wretched."  It has features it inherited from C&C.  And the spellcasting system is a Huge improvement, IMO.  The proficiency bonus mechanic is a nice thing to "hang" features upon.

There are things that I would like to change; "bounded accuracy" has issues, and makes the game almost impossible to hack.  But overall, I can't blame people for wanting to play the currently-published version of The Game.  The only edition that I would actually call "wretched" would be 4e.

I like the MC options of C&C.  It's entirely possible and easy to make "classes" that are exactly what one would like.  And there's also the option of bringing in classes from Amazing Adventures, TLG's "modern"/pulp game.  The mentalist is actually a playable low-level psionic class that can easily be ported.  And the raider class is, obviously, Indiana Jones, kind of a mix of fighter, rogue and scholar.

Tons of options for relatively-little work!