Digging into the OSE Classic Fantasy Rules Tome. That is a lot of stuff, in one modest little book. Quite interesting, thus far. It's my first exposure to 1981 B/X style games. I've read that the OSR fanbase, is quite fond of B/X?
It's hard to nail down.
For some, it's the ease of gameplay.
Others it's the lack of needing a multi-page book for your character sheet.
For me? It's the first game I remember playing nearly 40 years ago, and now my group has come full circle, and we are going to dive back into simple and fast combat encounters (and it's straightforward to hack) :)
No idea, I prefer the OD&D clones or AD&D myself. Race-as-class hybrids are a deal breaker.
Ok so I'm speaking as someone who doesn't actually care that much for B/X or OD&D-based games (I prefer the AD&D game feel), but as near as I can make it out here's the reason. The OSR movement is largely about stripping out what are perceived as unnecessary accretions to the D&D formula. Common examples being skill points, social mechanics, roleplaying mechanics (such as Traits/Bonds/Flaws), and similar. Of course another part of the movement is adding back in mechanics that have gotten lost (such as exploration turns, reaction rolls, morale etc.), but if you're inclined to strip D&D down, it doesn't get much more stripped down than B/X or OD&D.
The flip side of that is that because the B/X skeleton is so simple, it's easy to build on top of, and easy to maintain compatibility across products from different designers.
Even as someone who prefers AD&D based games, there are elements of B/X that I will say are better. The first one that comes to mind is the three-fold alignment system, which I think makes much more sense than the nine-fold one.
First rpg I ever got, read, and then played in the same day. 11 years old on a Christmas day. What Moldvay B/X had (which at the time I was unaware of) was a clear explanation of what the game was and how it was to be used. There has not been much improvement on Moldvay's presentation and explanation of playing a fantasy roleplaying game since. It is a thing of beauty. It is the last iteration of DnD which clings closely to the pulp-fantasy roots of the games creation. ADnD was created for business reasons while the 1981 Basic rulebook was a fine tuning of the concept Arneson and Gygax hammered out at the game table. What I remember most fondly about this set of rules is it never got in my way of daydreaming about fantasy settings, plots, and adventures. Most other games I got involved in (Hero Games I'm looking at you) demanded more time understanding how the game was to work than leveraging ideas into playable content.
Pretty much what the poster above said.
Only difference is I avoid most 'OSR' clones(theft) and just play good ol BX itself.
The main things are BX is really easy to get into. Has the fewest moving parts without being too few. And whats there gets the job done just fine. The classes work and theres none of the complications of later iterations. Its also like 50% OD&D so those familliar with one can ease into the other without much hassle. In many ways BX is O cleaned up.
BX also lacks the needless overcomplication of BECMI which plagued other games from TSR round that time as well.
It is great for introducing players to D&D without having to take too long. And it has a little control over the random chargen that AD&D and later lack.
It pretty much hits the balance between too simple and too complex. I think it could have benefitted a few more DMs tools. But you can pull that from AD&D as needed.
Quote from: ForgottenF on August 16, 2022, 08:14:52 PM
...
The flip side of that is that because the B/X skeleton is so simple, it's easy to build on top of, and easy to maintain compatibility across products from different designers.
...
This is a big part.
In my opinion: An very underrated part of B/X's popularity is the fact that by the time OD&D was ran thru the Holmes, Moldvay, Cook wringers; it was one of the most play-tested rules sets of all time.
Yes, it has different mechanics for different things, and it can seem a bit quirky looking back at its design from our 2022 lens...
But it just plain works.
It does what it says on the tin, right out of the gate.
There are not that many new RPG's (even OSR games) that can make that claim even today.
Quote from: ForgottenF on August 16, 2022, 08:14:52 PM
Even as someone who prefers AD&D based games, there are elements of B/X that I will say are better. The first one that comes to mind is the three-fold alignment system, which I think makes much more sense than the nine-fold one.
I really prefer the stat modifier spread of B/X over AD&D and 2nd edition. It's one of the first things I'll house rule.
Because it is the best, of course. :P
But, really, it is the simplicity. Four classes is really all you need (I might even ditch the cleric but it is too late for that; race as class is restrictive IMO but can be easily ditched). Notice Shadow of the Demon Lord uses the same scheme. 5E free basic rules PDF does e the same. AD&D 2e used it in the perfect way IMO.
OD&D would be even better but it is a mess to read.
Even classes like the ranger or barbarian re easily re-skinned fighters with feats (I'm working on those, out within a week!!).
I feel that most of the complexity added in the TSR era didn't make the game any better than the original. In fact, there are lots of things in B/X that could be simplified (thieves' skills, for example).
I think you could add complexity to B/X and make it even better, but the stuff AD&D added to OD&D (the strange bard, weapon speed, percentile Strength, etc.) didn't make the game much better than; so I think B/X is the best iteration of OD&D. Simple and almost complete. The RC is nice for more spells and powers without adding many fiddly bits to the original B/X, but again, the weapons and skills are a bit unnecessary complex, and the new classes aren't great IMO.
I'm playing 5e now, but I'm really quite fond of the ACKS extension of B/X's race-as-class, post Player's Companion: the way capabilities are bundled into classes differs between the races. Yes, there are fighty and sneaky and preachy and arcane aspects to elven culture, but they combine in ways that make a party of (Elven Courtier, Elven Enchanter, Elven Ranger) feel different from the equivalent human party of (Bard, Mage, Explorer), even though none of those elves are as multiclassed as Elven Spellswords or Elven Nightblades (F/MU or MU/T). They all draw on a shared elven heritage, without being as identical as core 5e elves or as incoherent as more recent 5e elves. It's also quite explicit that everything but the core four classes are campaign-specific. Some people are doing similar race-as-class work with OSE, I think.
I'm not keen on playing without feats, but ACKS proficiencies or OSE equivalents are just fine for me.
Yep, if you want to strip it down and build it back up, it's a great place to start. Note that even though I cite BEMCI/RC as my ideal point for that, in reality, what I'm using is more like BEM out of the RC, ignoring some of the build up in it. The convenience of the RC is hard to ignore when used as a reference, but I've played B/X too--actually, probably more than RC. So not that far from a B/X start.
Of course, it's naturally great if you want to stay stripped down, and not build anything up, too.
There's nothing wrong with really any of the iterations, official, OSR, or otherwise--in a vacuum. The problem is things layered on without doing the stripping first. Heck,
- AD&D 1E - Mostly built clean on bare wood, but keeps a few things that were slapdash painted over (admittedly, from an OD&D root rather than B/X, which is why it has the least issues in this regard).
- AD&D 2E - Sanded, caulked, and put on semi-gloss paint over varnish of 1E. Looks nice in the kitchen, but the stained wood effect is muted.
- 3E - Tried to get down to the wood, but got a little crazy with the power sander. Missed the point of the baking center. Had to do some quick repairs with time and budget running out, then waited too long to repaint. Didn't think the "kitchen triangle" mattered.
- 4E - Went into the mother-in-law suite and tried to build the equivalent in a galley, stainless steel kitchen. Got too cute based on a misunderstanding of the "kitchen triangle" theory. Ended up serving a limited number of cooks.
- 5E - Realized that part of the issues with previous versions was not stripping down properly. Somehow got the mistaken idea that it was beholden to every version that had ever been done. Which is how we ended up with a kitchen with a commercial gas range and a 10 cubic foot refrigerator left dumped on the side of the road by college student that had graduated. Sort of works somehow, but you'd like to hang the interior decorator and the bright idea guy that hooked up all the smart appliances to an under strength wireless adapter on the other side of the house.
Many of the OSR titles are a little more realistic in their appraisals before the work starts. The cabinets are just fine in the original. Just needs a new dishwasher. Maybe the wiring isn't to code, which means you have to take the cabinets, replace the wall plaster, etc, but the intent is to more or less keep the same kitchen updated. Or at least if you wandered into that kitchen instead of the old one, you'd recognize it as similar.
The game you use as a starting point can really color the effect of the changes, sometime in ways not recognized. It's better, of course, to absorb the merits and flaws of multiple systems (relative to the new design goals, at least), then strip/build from the best point based on that analysis. The more that will be stripped, the better a relatively simple base will be. Heck, even if you are starting new, it's still a good idea to look at how some other games turned out.
For that reason, B/X is also an excellent game to play before making that decision, even if it isn't used as the base. I really don't care much for "race as class", when all is said and done, but I'm also glad that I ran with it long enough to see it does have positives, and those do have repercussions throughout the design.
I used to make fun of race-as-class but it was reading through ACKS (which is B/X-based) which has multiple classes per race but all of them specialized and themed to the race, that it hit me: race-as-class is a crude-but-effective way to make non-humans feel different.
Is it the only way? No. Is it the best way? Probably a matter of taste. But it works.
I grant you this wasn't B/X's intent with the concept (which seems like it was more about simplifying playing demihumans). But ACKS has shown that the concept can be done well. And actually it has roots in BECMI: some of the Mystara gazetteers introduce new racial classes.
Quote from: Cat the Bounty Smuggler on August 17, 2022, 09:26:16 AM
I used to make fun of race-as-class but it was reading through ACKS (which is B/X-based) which has multiple classes per race but all of them specialized and themed to the race, that it hit me: race-as-class is a crude-but-effective way to make non-humans feel different.
Is it the only way? No. Is it the best way? Probably a matter of taste. But it works.
I grant you this wasn't B/X's intent with the concept (which seems like it was more about simplifying playing demihumans). But ACKS has shown that the concept can be done well. And actually it has roots in BECMI: some of the Mystara gazetteers introduce new racial classes.
It also limited the number of players who play demi-humans. I personally prefer the AD&D idea of having racial limits on class as a balancing factor. It seems new D&D has no humans because they a inferior to any non human race in large part because there are only advantages, not limits on playing something other than human.
Quote from: Godsmonkey on August 17, 2022, 09:53:29 AM
Quote from: Cat the Bounty Smuggler on August 17, 2022, 09:26:16 AM
I used to make fun of race-as-class but it was reading through ACKS (which is B/X-based) which has multiple classes per race but all of them specialized and themed to the race, that it hit me: race-as-class is a crude-but-effective way to make non-humans feel different.
Is it the only way? No. Is it the best way? Probably a matter of taste. But it works.
I grant you this wasn't B/X's intent with the concept (which seems like it was more about simplifying playing demihumans). But ACKS has shown that the concept can be done well. And actually it has roots in BECMI: some of the Mystara gazetteers introduce new racial classes.
It also limited the number of players who play demi-humans. I personally prefer the AD&D idea of having racial limits on class as a balancing factor. It seems new D&D has no humans because they a inferior to any non human race in large part because there are only advantages, not limits on playing something other than human.
Yeah, this is a good point as well, and one I don't think most fantasy RPGs I've seen address well at all. On the one hand, I want demihumans to be viable options -- that is, not obviously bad choices -- especially since there's a time and place for demihuman-only campaigns (a party of dwarves retaking an ancestral hold, or a halfling militia protecting their shire, or...). On the other, I also want humans to be the go-to choice for race, as well as some clear reason they have come to dominate the world.
Restricting class selection and restricting levels, which the classic editions all do, seems like the overall best way to do this. I could see removing the level limits only if you increase the experience requirements dramatically after a certain point.
Swords & Wizardry suggests a 50% XP penalty to continue after the level limits, which at first only sets demihumans back one level but slows progression dramatically after name level when the XP curve goes linear.
3e/3.5 wasn't
too bad, since it gave humans an extra feat and 4 skill points at first level, which still meant something at the time, and still having negative racial ability score modifiers helped as well. Afterward, though, it's like it's been all non-humans all the time.
Quote from: Cat the Bounty Smuggler on August 17, 2022, 11:43:15 AM
3e/3.5 wasn't too bad, since it gave humans an extra feat and 4 skill points at first level, which still meant something at the time, and still having negative racial ability score modifiers helped as well. Afterward, though, it's like it's been all non-humans all the time.
Humans are inferior in late editions of the game to the point that realistically, the species would either be extinct, or in a zoo in most worlds.
Which is OK if you're playing a game based on Planet of the Apes, but not a typical fantasy game.
Well, I think it's in the name. "Old" school revival. Old. The point of OSR games was to re-introduce the ye olde versions of D&D, as well as two major factors added.
1. The game is clarified with better written descriptions of the rules, which are also reorganized to be in more logical places in the various chapters.
2. The game is changed in slight (or heavy) ways to "fix" the game rules to suit the play style the author wished the original would have used. They're house rules made into just rules, like not using a race as a class. Not all OSR games do this, but at this point the faithful adaptations have already been written. Doing it again is a redundant waste of time. Most OSRs are modified in some way.
Eh... I don't see this "demihumans became too strong" thing.
In B/X, elves and dwarves seem to be tougher than fighters, even with level limits and different XP.
In 5e, the variant human was the best race for a long while, until Tasha's I think, that made some kind of snake-men the ubermensch (or maybe Schlangemesch, I'm not good with german :P )..
Surely there must have been extreme cases in the complete book of elves or 3e or 4e, but it is not a clear progression.
Also, I don't think PCs need to use the same rules as NPCs to explain setting differences. There are more bugs than tigers in the world, just because tigers are stronger doesn't mean they have to rule the world.
The idea that demihumans were handled better in earlier editions of the game is nonsense, though and through. You may have liked it better, and other editions may have handled it badly as well, but every edition tried to address it one way or another, and later editions actually tried to make humans stronger, which earlier editions didn't even do.
Race-as-class is only an illusion. You basically have copies of existing classes with race names and a few extra abilities tucked in. A "dwarf" is still a fighter who's a dwarf . An elf is a fighter-mage called "Elf". Thinking otherwise is squinting to see what you want to see.
Level limits are also a lame and hamfisted way to address the issue, and are only a factor if the group advances that high in level, which isn't a guarantee, and most campaigns don't make it pass 10th level anyways. Till then demihumans are still marginally stronger than humans (no, having Infra/Darkvision and maybe some bonus to hear noises or detect underground constructions doesn't turn you into some sort of killing machine that would drive humanity into extinction), and after that they're only weaker due to artificial show stoppers that restrict demihuman advancement purely for metagame reasons. It's basically bringing others down to seemingly bring humans up, like some sick identity politics thing.
Quote from: Eric Diaz on August 17, 2022, 12:45:39 PM
Also, I don't think PCs need to use the same rules as NPCs to explain setting differences. There are more bugs than tigers in the world, just because tigers are stronger doesn't mean they have to rule the world.
Bugs and tigers have different ecological niches, though; they're not in competition with one another in any meaningful way. A human community and a demihuman community require more or less the equal amounts of more or less the same types of resources to thrive, and so are in direct competition. Even dwarves, who live underground and so don't take up surface space, are an obstacle to humans building their own mines.
Quote from: Jam The MF on August 16, 2022, 07:53:35 PM
Digging into the OSE Classic Fantasy Rules Tome. That is a lot of stuff, in one modest little book. Quite interesting, thus far. It's my first exposure to 1981 B/X style games. I've read that the OSR fanbase, is quite fond of B/X?
Because it has all the elements that make classic D&D, classic D&D, and no more. Making it an excellent foundation on which to build your own take. Not so much in terms of publishing anything. But rather for bringing a bit of this and a bit of that for your own campaign i.e. house ruling.
A general rule of thumb is that most classic edition hobbyists like using AD&D stuff (classes, monsters, items, spells, etc.) with B/X rules (combat, exploration, etc.). I don't if it is a majority of classic edition hobbyists but it is a pretty large group. And fits the pattern I observed in my hometown back in the early 80s when it came to AD&D/D&D campaigns. Folks would say they would be running AD&D and only have the AD&D rulebook at the table. But when you look at what they really do to handle combat and other stuff it is in the B/X style.
Although if you plan to publish it works well for that purpose.
Quote from: Cat the Bounty Smuggler on August 17, 2022, 11:43:15 AM
Yeah, this is a good point as well, and one I don't think most fantasy RPGs I've seen address well at all.
My solution was to award human PCs +15% XP bonus. If they qualify for the +5% prime requisites bonus, human PCs are gaining +20% XP over time. In the last 2000s, I ran a number of one-shots and campaigns to see what worked and I tried a couple of numbers to see what was the lowest number to make a difference. +15% proved to be it and actually expressed the fantasy trope of humans being more dynamic than demi-human better accordingly to various groups I tried this out on.
This held true despite the fact that several playable races like elves, the demonic Viridians, Half-Viridians, had clearly mechanical advantages over humans.
Folks can see what it looks like in action with this download
https://www.batintheattic.com/downloads/MW%20Majestic%20Fantasy%20Basic%20RPG%20Rev%2010.pdf
I have a fair amount of additions to my Majestic Fantasy RPG rules but my general approach is to add the minimal amount of mechanics to make X happen or to have Y element in the rules. Thus +15% xp bonus for humans.
The only reason I also have a +1 attribute score bonus is because that was thing I tried first. My long-time players were used to getting that and I dislike taking away stuff especially when it had a minimal impact (the +1 bonus to an attribute score).
What inspired me to create these mechanics was an analysis by one of my players that the traditional +5% prime requisite bonus was basically useless given how XP charts worked. And we got to discussing how high a bonus would make a difference and the consensus was +20%. It was during this conversation I got the idea on how to make playing humans more appealing without making radical alterations to the D&D rules.
And as chance would have it +20% was sufficient. I then subtracted the existing +5% prerequisite bonus and came up with the +15% number.
Quote from: estar on August 17, 2022, 02:27:29 PM
And as chance would have it +20% was sufficient. I then subtracted the existing +5% prerequisite bonus and came up with the +15% number.
A 20% earned XP bonus for humans was tested for 3E, and was still 'current' when the announcement was made and leaks of playtest documents started coming out in August 1999.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer on August 17, 2022, 02:46:01 PM
A 20% earned XP bonus for humans was tested for 3E, and was still 'current' when the announcement was made and leaks of playtest documents started coming out in August 1999.
I wasn't aware of that. At the time most of my on-line RPG time was focused on GURPS and Traveller. Not sure why they would abandon the approach given the response I got when I implemented it.
Quote from: estar on August 17, 2022, 03:20:45 PM
Quote from: Armchair Gamer on August 17, 2022, 02:46:01 PM
A 20% earned XP bonus for humans was tested for 3E, and was still 'current' when the announcement was made and leaks of playtest documents started coming out in August 1999.
I wasn't aware of that. At the time most of my on-line RPG time was focused on GURPS and Traveller. Not sure why they would abandon the approach given the response I got when I implemented it.
My guess would be either they wanted to reduce bookkeeping, or they found it didn't interact as expected with the redone advancement tables or the last-minute multiclassing rules.
Quote from: Cat the Bounty Smuggler on August 17, 2022, 01:24:57 PM
Quote from: Eric Diaz on August 17, 2022, 12:45:39 PM
Also, I don't think PCs need to use the same rules as NPCs to explain setting differences. There are more bugs than tigers in the world, just because tigers are stronger doesn't mean they have to rule the world.
Bugs and tigers have different ecological niches, though; they're not in competition with one another in any meaningful way. A human community and a demihuman community require more or less the equal amounts of more or less the same types of resources to thrive, and so are in direct competition. Even dwarves, who live underground and so don't take up surface space, are an obstacle to humans building their own mines.
Well, sure, what I'm saying is that "power" isn't the only factor here. Maybe elves have fewer children, or maybe they are less aggressive than humans, or less likely to live in great cities, etc. Maybe dwarves that live outside get bad skin cancer they cannot explain. There could be an immense number of traits that wouldn't affect the individual PC but might affect the species as a whole.
Quote from: Eric Diaz on August 17, 2022, 03:34:54 PM
Well, sure, what I'm saying is that "power" isn't the only factor here. Maybe elves have fewer children, or maybe they are less aggressive than humans, or less likely to live in great cities, etc. Maybe dwarves that live outside get bad skin cancer they cannot explain. There could be an immense number of traits that wouldn't affect the individual PC but might affect the species as a whole.
And there could be spiritual, and other fantastic reasons that make sense in a fantasy setting as well.
I tell my players, yes there are things that are that good mechanically, paladins for example, but the thing you have to understand there are roleplaying complications that may temper your enthusiasm. Paladin are not free agents, they are holy warriors for their god and thus often doing the bidding of their deity or religion.
When it comes to my published rules, I write stuff like this
QuoteThe backgrounds are not balanced in terms of game mechanics. These rules assume that the setting is dominated by human cultures for a variety of reasons that are part of the setting and not covered by rules mechanics.
Part of the drive of the OSR originally was getting books to allow us to get rules books to play the games. Many of the rules books were out of print and certain printings did not hold up and fell apart. TSR encouraged for the 2 BX books to be taken apart and put into 3 ring binders (the books were prepunched).
For AD&D 1e/2e, a few of the more memorable retro clones that exist would include Hackmaster, OSRIC, For Gold & Glory, Hyperborea, Adventures Dark & Deep, Castles & Crusades, and Microlite. Some rather impressive and comprehensive works. A bit daunting to make a new retro clone for AD&D. Definitely much simpler to do supplemental rules to one of these pre-existing retro clones.
For 0e, Swords & Wizardry tends to be the predominate retro clone. It seems like there is a S&W variant of the week.
Now looking at Basic D&D, TSR published works from 1977 to 1995. The rules books went from 1977's Holmes Edition to 1994's The Classic Dungeons & Dragons Game for a total of 12 Core Rules Books. Quite a span of time and for the most part, the rules in the books interchange with little to no modifications. One example, if you need a rule for Jousting you have to go to the Companion DM Book for BECMI. BX and Rules Cyclopedia do not have Jousting. There is a lot of opportunities to make rule changes to Basic D&D. For example, Advanced Labyrinth Lord, OSE Advanced, and BX Advanced all bring AD&D components into BX.
The Basic D&D rules just have many areas and opportunities to create a new OSR rules set.
Level limits for demihumans work about as well as enforcing age restrictions along with downtime periods measured in years or decades when humans are in the game.
Quote from: bx corgi on August 18, 2022, 01:46:45 AM
Definitely much simpler to do supplemental rules to one of these pre-existing retro clones.
The problem is that there are no AD&D 1e clones that are 100% open content. OSRIC is the closest but half of it is only shared under the OSRIC license which imposes the restriction that the user can't quote more than a certain amount from the text. This is prevent from someone from taking the text of OSRIC and altering it.
Quote from: bx corgi on August 18, 2022, 01:46:45 AM
For 0e, Swords & Wizardry tends to be the predominate retro clone. It seems like there is a S&W variant of the week.
That because
-Matt made it 100% open content as well as the accompanying monster book.
-There is a nice formatted doc file.
-It pretty much an ur-D&D and has what makes classic D&D, classic D&D no more and no less.
Rob's Notes: what most people consider to be classic D&D first appeared as OD&D + Greyhawk Supplement I. OD&D 3 LBBs only plays differently enough to have its own feel and balance.
Quote from: bx corgi on August 18, 2022, 01:46:45 AM
The Basic D&D rules just have many areas and opportunities to create a new OSR rules set.
It is an excellent foundation if an author has a specific creative vision for a D&D based system. I personally used Swords & Wizardry, Core as the foundation for my Majestic Fantasy RPG.
The flip side of that is that because the B/X skeleton is so simple, it's easy to build on top of, and easy to maintain compatibility across products from different designers.
Personally I liked Holmes Basic better but there are a few things I'd use, like some of the attribute bonuses for things like Strength for Damage. IRRC Holmes had Dexterity modifying AC and missile attacks and Constitution modifiying hit points but not much else. I used the +1 per point over 15 from Gamma World in the first version of Dark Passages. But went to something that mapped more closely to fifth edition for the second version. Class creation is based on the concept from the 2e DMG but some of the classes came out a bit wonky. I keep meaning to revisit it.
Oh well, B/X is tight and simple as others have noted. Being restrictive isn't a downside for new players and GMs. Too many options leads to decision paralysis. That's why random encounter tables and structured dungeon modules are good for introductory games. But it was also TSR's most successful product and for many people it was THE D&D.
For us it's the combination of nostalgia (several of us started with Moldvay/Cook in the early 80s) and speed of play. Without all the feats, extra rules, combat options, etc., we find that you can get far more actual playing done at the table. For older people with limited gaming time, that pretty much trumps everything else. None of us want to learn new systems & mechanics at this point. B/X is simple enough to teach newbies and they've got it in a couple sessions.
As for some particulars, I like race as class, but appreciate the way ACKS does it. James Spahn has done supplements for Labyrinth Lord that do the same thing, providing racial classes that are more specialized. I'd love for ACKS to put out a class compendium that brings together all the classes from their various books. But it seems that they're focused on other things right now. One of our main games is OSE Advanced but using the racial classes, (i.e. not separating race & class) including some from ACKS and the Spahn book mentioned above. I find these more interesting than just being a halfling thief or whatever, even if the halfling burglar is basically that.
I also like the short monster stat blocks, toned down abilities, morale checks and the three point alignment system. And yes, no character sheet should ever consist of more than two sides. I won't even play a game with a character sheet exceeding two sides.
Quote from: Persimmon on August 30, 2022, 12:49:03 AMI'd love for ACKS to put out a class compendium that brings together all the classes from their various books. But it seems that they're focused on other things right now.
I'd like that as well. More specifically, I'd like to see Autarch release an OSE compatible product with a selection of race/classes designed with standard B/X rules in mind. Obviously ACKS is B/X compatible, but the class design does include some variables based on the ACKS rules set that make it more than just a straight drop in. I do agree that his plate is pretty full with Ascendant so probably not going to happen, but one can always hope.
If only Alex was around to read this... ;)
Probably because it's simple.
Or it's easier to add to a bare bones game than re-write a more complex one. I think a lot of OSR games are just the author's own house rules.