|
My 1st Edition books stand within arms-reach during my Monday night Pathfinder Beta/3.5 games, but I haven't reached for them in decades. Recently, however, I've been following the development of OSRIC to its current impressive 2.0 form and also reviewing my new Castles and Crusades books since they arrived last week from PAIZO.
To be clear, that I will continue playing Pathfinder RPG is an unshakable fact.
My questions about OSRIC/1e/C&C to ALL my esteemed PAIZO community members are these:
- The SEIGE Engine mechanic of C&C is clearly the most different aspect, putting that game in a category all its own... but given the choice to play C&C vs. 1e, would you choose C&C because classic issues with 1e are addressed/smoothed over? OR...
- Would you select to go with OSRIC 2.0 over 1e for the same reason, that issues with 1e are addressed/smoothed over? OR...
- *Would you just use your 1st edition collection (provided you still had yours, as I have mine?)
In sum:: Can anyone point to, draft, or list the key concise differences (pros and cons) of each?? What am I losing/gaining by selecting each?
|
Since I've just now (literally) downloaded OSRIC, and not had a chance to look it over, I will talk of C&C...
I have been feeling nostalgic lately, and have just been itching to play some "old school" D&D, so I bought many of the C&C books (it may not BE 1e, but it sure recaptures that nostalgic feeling for me)...
I personally would pick C&C over 1e (and I have all my old books as well), because with 1e, I would have to: a) relearn the rules (which is admittedly not all that difficult, but still). And b) I would have to "forget" 3rd edition...
With C&C, I have the best of both worlds! I get to try and recreate what it was to play "back in the day", and I still have access to my vast library of 3rd edition material (such as spells, monsters, and adventure modules). I could even bring back the concept of NPC only classes (such as those that were in Dragon Magazine back then) using 3rd edition's vast assortment of both non-core and prestige classes...
They say it is easy to convert both 1st and 2nd edition to C&C, but I have not attempted to do that yet (and honestly, not sure that I will)...
I am sure all this is true with OSRIC as well, but it is over 400 pages! While the C&C PH and M&T are both at 128 pages each, which makes me less inclined to use OSRIC, and more inclined to continue to use C&C...
I'll have to read OSRIC first before I make any final judgment calls (but that 400 page count in a single PDF does not make it any more attractive to me, but we'll see)...
I realize this isn't exactly what you were asking for, but I hope that is of at least some help to you :-)
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
|
|
...(but that 400 page count in a single PDF does not make it any more attractive to me, but we'll see)...
I realize this isn't exactly what you were asking for, but I hope that is of at least some help to you :-)
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
Actually, Digitalelf, this is exactly the kind of discussion I hoped to open up. Thank you for responding. The 400pg count is the result of a merged player's handbook, quasi-DMG, and monster manual rolled into one. Two key values I perceive: 1) OSRIC enables 3pps to publish for 1e legally and easily, and 2) the game has more of the 1e mechanics and "feel" than C&C, from what I've read so far... that is, the d20 aspects to C&C do have a old school feel but as a 3e variant - so I tend to agree with your assessment so far.
I too am reading through OSRIC 2.0 now, and amazingly, I remember most of these rules verbatim, .... I'm having some rather strange urges to play some OSRIC/1e session now, because I remember just how simple and.... "D&D" it feels to me... not to mention the strange automatic comfort level I feel playing these now "retro rules" but for me its like riding a bike (or falling off one) in the sense that I haven't forgotten how.... in over 20 years!
To those still considering... please return here and share your assessment... the jury is still out for me as I'm looking over all three options, but would love to hear anyone's insight. Thanks.
OK, let he of one game jump in here at his own risk...
What's the attraction for these other systems? Why not just play 1e?
|
|
Yo, M! Thanks for stopping into this thread. My chief reservation with playing 1e RAW, is the sensible work by Matthew Finch and Stuart Marshall really does make some fantastic improvements where 1e is "clunky".
In a way, from what I am reading and perceive about OSRIC 2.0 - its reading just like 1e, but as though it were written today, that is (so far... I'm not finished reading), it demonstrates all the integrity of 1e, with the kind of eye to consistency that Monte Cook brought to the game ruleset with 3e. Truly, its looking like a significant contribution to the gaming community. (Again, I'll weigh-in once I've thoroughly read it.)
I look at the 1e books, and they're good, they're playable - - and maybe that's what I should do. I too, like you M, am a die-hard Pathfinder RPG/3.5 gamer. However, reading OSRIC 2.0 has brought an instant "Yes, this would be very fun and familiar" feeling to me, and I'm reaching out for input from everyone on my 1e—OSRIC 2.0—C&C question...
OK Pax, you (with an assist from Maliszewski) got me to download OSRIC. I'll have to take a look at it one of these days...don't expect to hear anything for a long time, though.
|
C&C is a game inspired by 1st ed in tone and feel, but uses the basic d20 mechanic of rolling d20+modifiers vs target number through the SIEGE engine. Basically, skills, saves, class abilities... everything comes down to attribute checks modified by the character's overall level.
I simplified, but that's the concept right here.
OSRIC is the re-publication of AD&D1 through the OGL. It makes some tiny modifications to the original system, but by and large, it is 1st ed AD&D. The point of OSRIC existing is to allow the publication of AD&D modules through the OGL.
Okay. With all this clarified, I've been thinking of running an old school campaign for a few years now and have looked into all the available possibilities. OD&D, Mentzer/D&D Cyclopedia, AD&D, C&C... you name it. I got them and love them all for different reasons.
Now, with Monte's Dungeonaday.com around the corner, I'm positive I'm going to run Castles and Crusades.
Why? Unified mechanic, very simple to use and understand, very fast game play, old school in nature and feel, C&C is very easily adapted to anyone's needs.
It is a system that is very intuitive in nature and gives a lot to the DM to interpret on the spot. It's very easy to houserule.
It benefits from the advantage of bridging d20 mechanics with older editions: using an AD&D or a Pathfinder module with C&C is a no brainer. All of my D&D and d20 books are still usable with C&C in some capacity or another.
So that's it. I'm with C&C on this one (though I must say, AD&D is a very close contender - I just love the Gygaxian feel of it all).
So...what's the deal with Labyrinth Lord, then?
Thanks, Benoist!
For the best discussions of old-school gaming on the net, try out the excellent forums at knights-n-knaves.com
Be absolutely sure to read the rules and conditions. As they say, you are a guest in their house. This is a site dedicated to discussion of the original games. It is not permitted to discuss newer games there. There are plenty of places that cater to 2e, 3e, 3.5, 4e and other games. The Knights and Knaves forum is a specialist site.
Have fun.
|
|
I've been checking out the Alehouse... and also DragonsFoot is nicely organized, as well as pretty "giving' in terms of free downloads....
In redundant response to M on his question about Labrynth Lord....
OSRIC is a clone of the game's 1978 "First Edition," and Labyrinth Lord is a clone of the game's 1981 "Basic" Edition.
I am really liking the feel of OSRIC/1e so far.... I've made up two characters - 1st level magic user, and a 1st level dwarf thief. I even rolled up these guys up with another new set of Zocci dice that I just colored in.
I swear, its like falling off a bike. The charts are so near identical to Gygax's 1st edition, that I have it open in parallel. The "feel" is authentic (for whatever that is worth).
I am beginning to imagine what it would feel like to host a, "Learn the Game" party for beginners? I am truly thinking about putting up a flyer that reads, "Where it all began... Come Join the 'First' Campaign..." or something like that!
Also — I am beginning to understand why some folks are playing Castles & Crusades in relation to 1e and OSRIC. The OSRIC index compilation never really steps forward and says how an ability check is adjudicated mechanically.... correct me if I am wrong, but that omission actually opens the door to slip Chenault's SEIGE Engine right in there, if one preferrs to do so... but I'm not necessarily compelled to so far. I am truly liking OSRIC 2.0 and have begun comparing monster stat/description layouts to my original set of first edition books. And again, OSRIC 2.0 is truly living up to the tag, "First Edition Reborn."
I really like the look/feel/etc. of C&C, but OSRIC 2.0 keeps winning me over with both professionalism, thoroughness, craftiness, and genuine 1e-clone authenticity....
I'll keep you posted. (Please add additional comparisons as you think of them/experience them. Thanks, I am learning a lot as I travel down memory lane...
I love Castles & Crusade! I ran a campaign (on and off) for about a year using it. I love the fact that it's so easy to convert older (D&D, AD&D, and 2nd ed.) to it, and relatively easy to convert 3rd edition stuff to it. I love how modular it can be (like feats? Add feats! Enjoy the secondary skills from Basic? Add em!) and how it captures the old school feel with essentially 3rd editions mechanics. I've been trying to get my sister interested in RPGs, and I'm planning on introducing them via C&C. OSRIC and 1st Edition (as well as Basic) are great, but C&C is where it's at.
(YES! I am a horrible fanboy, I admit).
So is HackMaster taken seriously by this crowd, or was it pretty much just a parody?
|
|
Great question M. I'd be interested to hear other opinions on this too. Here is my opinion:
Hackmaster - just a parody/joke/burlesque imho. No value judgment on this, but I think the game of dnd fell victim over the years to a parody of itself. Check out the Flame Princess' blog about this. If you need a link, let me know - very good read.
So far, imho, things spun beyond the subject of this thread, with the exception of a few clones I haven't included (Swords & Sorcery for example) are just too far from the center target.
That said, I can appreciate variants, and also give props to GMs who make up their own worlds and modify systems for homebrews. But to answer your question, M, I've never felt Hackmaster or the so-called 1st ed. feel of Goodman "classics" really ever captured anything more than a burlesqued version of the characature of dnd portreyed in the media and (inadvertantly?) by the game companies.
|
|
Also — I am beginning to understand why some folks are playing Castles & Crusades in relation to 1e and OSRIC. The OSRIC index compilation never really steps forward and says how an ability check is adjudicated mechanically.... correct me if I am wrong, but that omission actually opens the door to slip Chenault's SEIGE Engine right in there, if one preferrs to do so... but I'm not necessarily compelled to so far. I am truly liking OSRIC 2.0 and have begun comparing monster stat/description layouts to my original set of first edition books. And again, OSRIC 2.0 is truly living up to the tag, "First Edition Reborn."I really like the look/feel/etc. of C&C, but OSRIC 2.0 keeps winning me over with both professionalism, thoroughness, craftiness, and genuine 1e-clone authenticity....
In answer to your question: yes, seems like it is an open door to slip in the SIEGE engine if you want to.
I don't know if that's effectively the case, but that seems like it.As for your liking of OSRIC, I'm glad you found what you were looking for. Indeed, there is a fundamental difference between OSRIC (and AD&D) and C&C. I'd argue that C&C is more free-form in style. That is, the adaptability of the system relies in part in its lack of clear cut, "on/off switches" rules. In other words, the DM is left with a lot of freedom to define the rules as s/he truly wants.
In yet other words, it's also about the players. OSRIC/AD&D is for old-schoolers who appreciate rules to be there when needed, while C&C is for players who wouldn't mind DM fiat/interpretations of the rules. I would choose between systems according to the type of players I have around the table as well. The more there is group cohesion, an understanding of what the game is aiming for in terms of entertainment, and a cooperation to reach these aims, the more I'll consider using C&C.
I really love both, but for very different reasons indeed.
Thanks, Benoist!
Welcome, my friend!
|
|
Thank you, Benoist!
I am now comparing 1e with OSRIC 2.0.
They're looking ostensibly the same, with slight variations/interpretations. Consistency of Monster example:
- * An Ettin is still an Ettin. Same frequency, no. Appearing is now called No Encountered, Armor Class is the same, Hit Dice is the same, No. of attacks is the same, Damage is the same (expressed is OSRIC as 2d8 rather than 2-16 in 1e, In lair is the same as lair probability, Treasure Type system is different but ostensibly generates about the same kind and amount - OSRIC no longer uses the Treasure Type letter, There can be a variance on some special defenses information between the two systems - Gygax defines the number on a d6 by which the Ettin can be surprised while OSRIC only describes that they are seldom surprised, Magic resistance is the same, Intelligence is the same, Alignment is the same, Size is the same, Psionic Ability or its place holder in a stat block is completely removed (AFAIK), and finally a slight enhancement has been made to OSRIC 2.0 in which the creatures's physical description is set apart in its own paragraph marked "Description:"
I'm also becomming aware of consistencies with slight variances in very minor aspects. If anyone has already looked at these comparisons, please share your findings.
About Castles & Crusades: I see the draw here - the SEIGE engine covers so many circumstances that it likely has a charm for those who want to adjudicate everything using a singular system. What I'm missing there is some of the varied focus of classes and algorithms for results (i.e. in C&C if everyone is adding level bonuses it seems easy but not necessarily interesting to the class development progression), and I'm also not getting to use some of the 'classic' systems such as rogue's percentile success amounts, etc. (And I understand that some folks actually preferred a unified system - heck, I've been very happy with third edition in this regard too). But honestly, as I look just beyond the more modern artwork in C&C, I see the first edition feel everyone is talking about, and it comes in C&C aparently without actually doing "first edition" type things. So on that count I must give kudos to Chenault for morphing the system without morphing the feel. I see a very interesting approach in C&C.
And I noticed Pax threw Goodman in there too!
|
|
I wouldn't be able to go into the detail all the differences between OSRIC and AD&D. I know they exist, but my memory isn't helping right now. I'm sure you can find some discussion threads over at dragonsfoot.org about it.
As for C&C, your confusion here probably comes from the fact I oversimplified the SIEGE engine. You actually don't get to add your level on every check you make. If your performing a class ability, or something the DM (Castle Keeper or CK here) assumes your class/race would be skilled at doing, or roll for a save, then you add your level to your roll. If you attempt to perform something your class/race cannot normally do, then the CK gets to decide if you roll at all, or if you can try to roll without adding your level (a fighter trying to pick a lock could be such an instance).
You could houserule that there are cases where characters can add half their level to their checks, too. That's how easy C&C is to houserule.
Another difference in the SIEGE engine is the notion of primary attributes. When you create your character, you get to choose which two (or three, if Human) attributes are your "Primary" attributes. In practice, whenever you make a SIEGE roll, the DC of your check is calculated by adding a base to a approximation of the difficulty of the action being performed (usually between 0 extremely easy and 10 very hard). The base is 12 for a Primary attribute, and 18 for a Secondary attribute.
So if say a human ranger with Strength, Dexterity and Wisdom as primary attributes and a elven wizard with Dexterity and Intelligence as primary attributes, walk in the forest and attempt to hear something hidden in the bushes, they will make a Wisdom check (Perception = wisdom). The noise is kind of easy to hear, but muffled slightly by the trees. Challenge Level 2. The DC for the ranger is 12 (primary att) + 2 = 14, while it is 18 (secondary att) + 2 = 20 for the wizard.
|
|
I should clarify... seems C&C takes a holistic approach to adjudicating most things with a variant of the SEIGE engine, albeit, as you describe 1) Either as a prime or not and 2) Either with lvl bonus or not and 3) Possibly without roll at all and 4) Off of a base 8 or a base 12 from what I can tell and 5) modified by ability bonuses.
Again, no value judgment... as I read through my new copy of Castle and Crusades: Monsters and Treasure, I see that I have repurchased my old MMI from first edition, however, it is now tailored to fit within the Castles and Crusades rules-light system.
Ah................. that's a key distinction. C&C is rules light, whereas OSRIC 2.0 attempts to rebirth First Edition to the extent it can while committing no copyright infringement.
I think its becomming very clear now: C&C, then, is a d20/3e approach to an otherwise first edition look/feel and play.
Similarities still exist insomuchas C&C and OSRIC advise to play fast. Based on my memory from the old day, that meant use only the rules necessary, with the DM's descriptions and wide-open character choices as primary focus with rules and books in the background (if/when needed).
All three games seem to demonstrate a lot of what Matthew Finch describes in his Primer for Old School Gaming.
So, a table/chart seems to be formulating here; can anyone add other sharp distinctions/similarieis?
|
|
LOL! Both certainly add to each's charms!
Ah................. that's a key distinction. C&C is rules light, whereas OSRIC 2.0 attempts to rebirth First Edition to the extent it can while committing no copyright infringement.
I think its becomming very clear now: C&C, then, is a d20/3e approach to an otherwise first edition look/feel and play.
Similarities still exist insomuchas C&C and OSRIC advise to play fast. Based on my memory from the old day, that meant use only the rules necessary, with the DM's descriptions and wide-open character choices as primary focus with rules and books in the background (if/when needed).
You got it. And just as you pointed out, both encourage you to come up with rules of your own and modify the system as you go. It's one of the biggest misconceptions about AD&D: that somehow, it was meant to be played by-the-book, while Gary keeps repeating over and over that the rules set is meant to be changed and evolve at the game table.
Ironically, I know where the misconception comes from: from Gary's own words in The Dragon, where he insisted on AD&D being the Official TSR set of advanced rules, and any slight modifications of those rules would not be considered "AD&D". I think he was more refering to all sorts of variations floating around in conventions at the time rather than saying the game had to be played by the book, but the confusion stems from there.
|
|
I have OSRIC and LL (plus lots of adventures and supplements for them) but if I wanted to check out C&C what is the best way? I see there is a Basic Set coming out sometime. I also see a condensed PDF...
|
|
Hey DitheringFool! Nice to see you stop into this thread.
The best way to check out C&C (if Free is your game), is to go here: Castles & Crusades Quick Start Guide (FREE) downloadable from DriveThruRPG
Also, PAIZO sells the player handbook (third printing) and the Monsters & Treasure book. Troll Lord Games charges very little for them compared to other industry items - so you might just want to get the full Monte... (oh, I mean the full Chenault).
*lol*
|
|
Thanks Pax & Benoist. OK, I got the feebie and I'll dig into it. I guess my next question is, should I just get the Player's Guide (3rd printing) or wait for the next printing?
|
|
Okay. Got an answer from Peter Bradley (the author of pretty much all the art of C&C):
When is the 4th printing hitting the stores?
No one knows. When its ready too, it will be announced, not before.
What are the differences between 3rd and 4th printing?
New cover design, larger font, a revised barbarian and illusionist class, some more spells, some different art, and further cleaned up errata.
So really, what's sort of important here is that the illusionist gets more spells and the barbarian is revised. I don't know how much exactly. All I can say is that I'm very happy with my 3rd printing and expect the specifics of the differences to be found on the internet sooner or later.
I hope this helps!
|
|
I was reading Stephen Chenault's blog about a week ago and noticed he was interested in making the C&C logo have more bold contrast.... so, look and feel will be affected as well in the fourth printing as BenoistPoire mentioned.
Also, I debated the same thing... do I wait for fourth printing, or just get the third? Honestly, I opted to just get third because the price is reasonable, and I wasn't 100% sold, but wanted to familiarize myself with the game - perhaps look around for a group I could play with a time or two in the mean time... Your call, DitheringFool, I wouldn't blame you either way, man.
So, this evening, I completed what I think is a solid refresher on First Edition. With my 1e collection on the game table, I read OSRIC 2.0 through, printed a fan-created GM screen set of selected tables, and built a new OSRIC 2.0 GM-Screen out of PAIZO cardboard mailers, charts, scotch tape, and goldenrod paper.
P.s. I might need to create a how-to post for everyone... the PAIZO cardboard is perfect for creating screens. I did this for the Alpha 1, Alpha 2, and Beta Playtest that I've been running weekly.
All-in-all... I belive OSRIC 2.0 to be an excellent clone of 1e. That said, I believe I can use both my 1e books and OSRIC together. At the end of this day of printing, cutting, taping, reading, comparing.... I conclude that I want to play OSRIC 2.0 as a First Edition game. I'll stick to the OSRIC character sheets, and disallow the Monk and other items that were originally 1e but could not be duplicated for legal reasons in OSRIC 2.0. I resolve to begin thinking again of interesting NPCs, unusual dungeon rooms, and wicked-cool quests, and either teach my v.3.5 simulationist players what is was like "back in the day", or get a whole new group together for some classic Gygaxian gaming.
Please - feel free to continue adding contrasts and comparisons in this thread. I have only scratched the surface. And, I'm still eyeing those C&C books...
I am
01-09 chuffed.
10-19 happy.
20-29 glad.
30-39 delighted.
40-49 elated.
50-59 overjoyed.
60-69 over the moon.
70-79 ecstatic.
80-89 overcome with pure joy.
90-100 in paroxysms of pure bliss.
that you have found an outlet for that old-school itch.
|
|
Thanks Hoyle. I am ...
*rolls dice, sees that 23 has been rolled* Happy that you are "Glad" too.
What do you think of the following analogy?
Has anyone gotten the sense that playing old-school shifts the game up to a higher level, like on an outline, to a letter or roman numeral? But... the higher level is no less significant, nor any less fantasy role-play.
After freshly reviewing 1st edition/OSRIC/C&C I see a strong similarity by design that these all fall equally into the original style of play, ... they are indeed old-school, but not necessarily "old" in feel. Most of what true original gaming was seems to have been distorted in public understanding by discussions of hacking and slashing, which is simply not the case.
I make the following analogy to an outline for your consideration? (Feel free to poke holes in this....!)
Third Edition Play:
I.
II. ...etc...
XII. Ability Scores
....A. Intelligence
........1. Standard Modifier can also be modified by a condition
............a. Added to Save DC for Spell Casting
................1) Spell Resistance can be a factor
....................a) Knowledge of certain spells/schools/descriptions sometimes needed
....................b) Melee spell casting and Aoo are considered
....................c) Etc.,...
First Edition Play:
I. Players use charaacter sheets containing ability scores, saves, attack, damage, weapons, equipment and other items as needed, as they come up in play to help interact their unique character in the mileau set forth by the GM.
II. The GM keeps the story moving through player involvement in dialogue, open-ended choices, and interaction in a skelletal framework that is fleshed out by the players organically during play. Research of rules, and refernce to simulationist detail such as "squares", sub-systems, or lists of sub-system powers such as domain spells, school spell bonuses, feats, skills, or the like...
III. Play generally proceeds with a collective awareness (GM and players) that they are developing charaters generally through a series of story arcs that often connect into a cohesive campaign. The Players and the GM share outcomes, but focus is placed on only basic system mechanics, where and when necessary, rather than a means by which choices are made (such as from lists of powers, skills, feats, or special abilities or spell-like abilities, etc.,...)
I might continue to work this out, but my key sense is that if we were to see all the multiple games and sub-systems written out in an outline for Third Edition, it might more clearly show what C&C/OSRIC/1e have in common — that is, they seem to have more than just simplicity in mind because their overall focus is simply at a higher level (as from an outlining perspective, not higher in terms of more important).
It strikes me that "old-school" gaming might indeed be a bit of a misnomer in this regard... perhaps we should favor a more accurate term, though I don't know what that might be yet...
OT: Pax,
|
|
M. - I think we'll be okay.
I think the cardinal difference between old and new school is DM mandate.
The first edition game assumes that the DM is smart, and will make judgement calls for margin cases that may have no relation to the rest of the ruleset. A player is expected to defer to the DM in all things, and assume anything at his own peril. The DM creates a a mileux, and stocks it with an eye to verisimillitude, and exception based obstacles. The players do their level best to survive, using a combination of character ability, and more importantly, player intelligence and tactics. Houserules are expected, and there is a definite surrendering of ownership of the game to the DM, and his or her group. Players are required to come up with novel uses for equipment, and experimentation is rewarded. The rules are the bare bones, and must be fleshed out by common sense arbitration, using real world logic and physics.
The game is deliberately abstract. Not just hit points, but every aspect of combat and magic is left sufficiently vague to allow many different interpretations of what is going on. There is a constant tension in the ruleset between things that are minutely detailed, like the difference between a glaive, and a glaive guisarme, and the things that are left deliberately open, to allow multiple interpreatations.
The world of the game is assumed to exist in its own right, and not be centred on the characters. There are places that are just flat out too dangerous, and players are expected to know when to run away.
That is my take.
|
|
Taliesin - that's the best, most succinct take I have ever heard inside of one paragraph! (Matthew Finch - eat your heart out.)
Marvelous summary, Teliesin Hoyle. I agree wholeheartedly; I will in-fact print your statement and share with my players as an opener!
And to connect this to our C&C/OSRIC 2.0/1e discussion, would you agree that this is precisely what unites all three games in their similarity and intent?
I think 1E was naturally in that mode, and was not completely conscious of its own strengths. It used random rolls for treasure, and no. appearing, and exceptional strength bonus, and potion miscibility, because that was the game. The random simulation of a shared world, faced by the players as a sort of test of mettle, was D&D.
Something that is obvious in hindsight, is the lack of cohesion in the ruleset, and the lack of a unifying mechanic. Everything is modular and granular. Thief skills and resurection survival rolls are percentile, and yet bear no relation to each other, because first edition is pretty much a greatest hits compilation of houserules.
The chaos of the original AD&D DMG is not a bug. It is a feature. It is like a burgess shale fossil record of directions the game should have gone, and could have gone. It is not a rulebook, as much as a guide to how other players solved arguments at early game tables. It starts with a guide to the probabilities of dice rolls, and linear and bell progression as an up front admission of incompleteness, basically saying:" Here is how to figure s~+# out using dice rolls. The rest of this m!!@%+$%@@!! of a head trip of a tome, is a collection of things we came up with already, but we admit that no ruleset is ever going to tape down more than a corner of the possible things that will come up when your players leave the reservation. Now that you have the rules, go and break them with creativity and style. If your players show you the rule you are breaking, show them rule one."
OSRIC is consciously an emulation of first edition, and is a remarkable feat of copyright evasion. It is a loving tribute, and it shares the messiness of the parent game. It does not try to codify, or tidy anything, except for a few corner cases that are clarified. It is basically an excuse to have one line stat blocks in deadly modules again.
C+C is a reworking of the chassis of the game. it tries to tape down more s&&@ that comes up in game.
|
|
Again, fantastic summary, Taliesin Hoyle. This articulately paraphrases the intent and perspective of what I feel is the greatest of all the books - the AD&D 1e DMG (should be required reading of all GMs, regardless of the game version they play). Thank you for sharing that perspective so concisely. For those that understand, their game will undoubtedly improve, regardless of game version.
As we find ourselves 1 year after Gary's passing, and I believe more folks might be heading down the path of exploring OSRIC 2.0/1e/C&C. I hope those who are searching to rekindle, refresh, or re-spark the roots of the game come across your previous posts to help them understand.
I like what Third edition did for the game, unifying the system and ostensibly saying "higher is better" in terms of dice rolls throughout. I think 3e/v.3.5/Pathfinder is a kind of pinnacle of play-style in which the majority of aspects included in the game can be codefied/unified/explained/quantified/and often simulated in terms of table top miniature and terrain play, along with the exactness and balance that the measurements and sub-systems offer. In fact, from a "top of the line" perspective, v.3.5/Pathfinder RPG IS unshakably my preferred game of choice.
And now, I'm seeing the value of Castles & Crusades - in the way they retooled first edition from the chasis on up. As I read C&C, I can see it contains the top elements of third edition via d20, yet retains the simplicity of first edition.
Again, 1e was simple, but not simplistic by all accounts; even in hindsight it still shows it contains every essential strand of AD&D DNA.
I'm happy to have begun this rediscovery of the game's roots (1e), its modern clone (OSRIC 2.0), and its redesign/rebuild (C&C).
|
|
One of my players, has asked me what it is I expect to be different by playing C&C...
He is not against playing it. He just doesn't see that there would be any difference in play style for him. But then, he is an "old school" gamer, and still looks to me for rules clarifications and such. And I tend to run my games the same way I did when I was using 1e/2e, even though I fully embrace 3.5/Pathfinder rules...
The answer I gave him was, that I would see more of a difference in play than he would, because I would not have the juggernaut of 3rd edition to tell me how to rule on any given situation (though, I did say that I would still look to 3e for guidance if a situation came up that I couldn't easily rule upon)...
I guess my reasons for wanting to get back to basics, is because a part of me is tired of all the rules in 3rd edition. And I suppose there is a bit of me that wants to try and recapture a part of my youth...
I dunno...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
|
|
I guess my reasons for wanting to get back to basics, is because a part of me is tired of all the rules in 3rd edition. And I suppose there is a bit of me that wants to try and recapture a part of my youth...
Very understandable, and there are probably thousands just like you in that regard. I anticipate hearing the question, "why go back" from my players (if I use the same players from v.3.5/PRPG). Honestly, if I take them back, it would be for reasons I would not be able to explain, but WOULD be able to demonstrate through more fluid play.
Some things I might expect (though can't be sure of) would include possibly expecting to get more of an adventure to move forward within a session (simple math when you remove the need for square counting, line of sight indicators, and the skills/feats system adjudications and exceptions; I would also be setting aside my PC with SRD hyperlinks, and setting aside my SORD and SORD Plus tools, along with some simulationist aspects); and it might place greater owness on each players to co-create the game.
Just a few possible examples might include: importance placed on the player to "talk to" the townie rather than make a gather information check; it might illustrate to 3.x players that negotiations are won/lost through actual diplomacy of word choice, respect and tone rather than a d20 roll against Diplomacy skill.
Again - I loved Hoyle's summary of the game differences (above). I just shot off an email with his explanation summary to my group to let them know I was researching and walking down memory lane - but good things would come of this...
[For clarity: As stated earlier, I am a big fan of Monte's 3e/v3.5/PRPG; however, this thread is an exercise in understanding the games (and their effects on play) listed in the thread title. Thank goodness that the OGL from Third Edition makes all this possible!]
@DigitalElf - I completely see where your old-schooler still plays with that style and thus doesn't expect much to change. I have a few of those at my table too. However, can you think of any more illustrative aspect that you think would change for those "raised" on Monte Cook?
|
|
I think what it really comes down to is the trust and understanding there is between players and DMs, and between players themselves.
There's been a gradual shift in D&D towards the rules being able to provide all the answers. This, and a general dislike of "DM fiat", i.e. arbitrary adjudication.
I don't really know if we can blame this on the hobby growing over time and players ending up at game tables with DMs they don't know and therefore wouldn't "trust" in terms of adjudication. Maybe it also has to do with too many instances of abusive AD&D DMs over the years (you know the kind I'm talking about: the ones worshipping Tomb of Horrors to such an extent any module they run has to be a killer-adventure, who just negate players abilities on the spot because they don't want them to work, et cetera).
I don't mean to say that trust at the game table can't exist with modern rules set. Not by a long shot. But this is a staple of the old school experience. You've got to have trust in the capacity of the DM to entertain the table and be a fair referee (the original term for a "Dungeon Master", after all), and trust in the other players to not run the show at every turn (particularly players of magic users at mid/high level) for the experience to be truly fulfilling.
By contrast, modern editions of the game rely on the rules to provide the game's fairness. This is NOT what for instance the 3rd edition DMG advises, but the insistance on "game balance" in its very rules created a further deviation from its original intent in this regard. You can visit the WotC message boards and see the miriads of topics on this being "balanced" or "unbalanced".
Certainly, these concerns did exist with older editions of the game, but never to that extent.
I assume this also has to do with the way 3rd edition empowered DMs with their own stuff - "game balance" between classes for instance allowed DMs to come up with their own base classes relatively easily. Prestige Classes. Magic Items. The list goes on. There's a loop here: you need game balance to make the rules accessible for the users, and this accessibility created a necessity for clear game balance players and DMs could judge by the blink of an eye.
Similarly, that's not to say that a DM or players can't come up with their own stuff with older editions of the game. But there again, I think there is that trust that comes into the equation, since designing new classes and such for an older edition is more a matter of eyeballing the relative fairness of the new design rather than a clear science (not that it ever was in 3rd ed, it could have been much clearer than it was, but it was more so than in previous editions of D&D).
In the case of your friend, Digitalelf, I think he doesn't really see the point because the trust is already there. I think that's flattering to your DMing, because it basically means "I really like your DMing. Why change the rules at all? That's what matters to me."
|
|
can you think of any more illustrative aspect that you think would change for those "raised" on Monte Cook?
Like you said in your post, one can run an adventure more smoothly because there isn't the need for rules such as; line of site, number of squares, facing, etc…
And if a player says, "Well, how do we know..." the answer (more often than not) is: common sense...
In the case of your friend, Digitalelf, I think he doesn't really see the point because the trust is already there. I think that's flattering to your DMing, because it basically means "I really like your DMing. Why change the rules at all? That's what matters to me."
Indeed, this is true... Thank you for pointing that out for I had not looked at it from this angle :-)
I look forward to playing C&C with him (as he had stated he was more than willing to give it a try)...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
|
|
@Benoist - I'm hearing a good list of reasons why the "shift" occurred such as abusive DMs, the big game balance push, empowerment, modularity of build & balance, etc.,..., and one other pops into mind:
selling more materials! Execs wanting to sell more/make more profit were frankly tired of selling everything to Dungeonmasters who were only 1 in 6 of the D&D gaming market.
During my week of review of OSRIC/1e/C&C I was reminded (as evidenced in the thin 120ish pages of the First Edition Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Players Handbook, that the stuff that was the domain of the Dungeonmaster wasn't read by the players back then. As a result, I suspect, early TSR made profits from eager and willing DMs but players just bought the PHB. After the year 2000, and with a new regime in charge, the very same initiative that gave birth to our precious OGL, also gave rise to the SPLAT of information to everyone, for everyone; this, imho, made it more obvious to players when/if the DM was houseruling vs. "following the rules of the game."
As such, we find ourselves at the end of a decade during which the "Dungeonmaster" has been dislodged from his position of "mastery." I cannot stress enough that v.3.5/PRPG is my game of choice, however, I am not blind to the fact that at my table, the players have been encouraged by this past decade to purchase, purchase, purchase. As such, there is little distinction in any modern sense between what is stuff "For the DM" vs. "For the player" anymore.
And, this is where my beloved PAIZO share something in common with other leading FRPG publishers — all these companies are still operating under the "sell to everyone", and "design/sell rules" mantra that has increased the kinds of profits that TSR probably coudn't dream of by delivering one set of products to 1 in 6 of its potential customers.
I believe, imho, this was one of the biggest "game-changers." Its important that I say "NO VALUE JUDGMENT" at this time, because I do not wish to place blame, nor get into a discussion about capitalism, business smarts, or whatever...; I'm just pointing out a contributing factor that, imho, led to 3e (DM is accountable because everyone else also knows all the rule details), and 4e (DM is actually "optional" becuase the rule-system can facilitate play without an experienced/trusted/assumed-to-be-smart DM).
...
And so I will add to my list of commonalities, that all three OSRIC 2.0, 1e, and C&C continue to inspire, trust, and assert the powerful but benevolent role of the DM. These documents drip with coaching and advice to help the GM internalize their understanding of game balance, rather than point to systems, numbers, processes, that adjudicate the balance by mechanical design.
Pfeewww! Just a few thoughts, huh? Do you also see what I'm seeing here?
|
|
This is a very good point indeed: the evolution of the marketing itself meant selling to players, and selling to players meant that the DM's role as referee would slip away from its grasp towards the actual rules of the game.
I'm in complete agreement on this.
The term "game balance" used time and time again is very revealing of this evolution. What "game balance" actually means is "rules balance". There is something of a Freudian slip here in equating "rules" to mean "the whole game". This definitely reveals the way rules have gradually become the final arbiter and centerpiece of the game. Where, in older editions, the DM would override the rules by his judgment calls we now have the rules overriding the DM's judgment.
To some players, if you don't abide by the rules, then that means you are a "bad" DM. These players did exist a few decades ago already, but that tendency has only been growing since then. This is linked to what we're talking about here.
Post Scriptum - by the way, I'm not trying to put blame on 3.5/Pathfinder either. I think this is a fair assessment of the evolution of the game, and different editions will serve different objectives at a game table. To choose which version of the game to use for which game table, I think it is critical to understand each system for what it stands for and tries to achieve. I too love 3.5 and Pathfinder. It is a very different love than the one I have for older editions and variants of the game.
|
|
I did it.
I really did it.
For the first time since the 1980s I played First Edition via. OSRIC 2.0 on Monday night.
Wow. What a blast for everyone!
After the first 1/2 hour of role-play, at the end of a 6 month campaign arc, and while their Pathfinder/v.3.5 characters were celebrating at the Baroness' ball, and feasting later at Valkim's Memory tavern (who's new proprietor is one of the PCs), I handed out pre-made OSRIC 2.0 characters that I had made. I gave the players each their same class, but created 1st level PCs with new races and names and stats.
It was fantastic.
They took to it like a fish in water. Everybody just rolled with it. As their Pathfinder/v.3.5 characters were dining, in the background the 1st level characters were called away because their number had been drawn for the Sage's Task. As new adventurers, they had been await an offer to help the local Sage.
They were given an assignment and completed a short but complete adventure Monday evening. There was laughter, smiles, new situations not typically described or gotten into - - and feedback from the players was that they were taken back to the Dungeons & Dragons they remember from back in High School (yes, for many of us that would have been the 1980s).
As a game master, I had a blast. Everything was fluid again. I didn't stop to "cognate" which rules supported the type of description I was giving - - I just gave it. I made things up, described things as I spontaneously imagined them without any preparation of grid-scales, or monster stat blocks. I just used the complete OSRIC 2.0 I had been reading and printed at Kinkos last week, and improvized the whole night - - - much to my enjoyment.
How very refreshing. I'm very lucky because every game night is awesome with Pathfinder/v.3.5 and this group. But my memory of the game last night is not preoccupied with cool ways powers or abilities were used. ... What I remember most is the fun, fast pace, fullness of story (meaning exposition, rising action, climax, falling action) all in one night. I was impressed that after years of planning carefully, organizing thoughtfully, and executing with extreme precision my usual games - - that I was able to deliver an equally enjoyable experience without any of those concerns.
It helped to have an OSRIC 2.0 game master screen developed - I did that earlier in the week. And it helped that I previously ran First Edition for years in the 1980s. It was just like riding a bike in the sense I never forgot how.
I know, I shouldn't be so surprised. But I am. And, I am wholly impressed with the outstanding performance of the free OSRIC 2.0 by Stuart Marshall and Matthew Finch.
I am not sure that this makes me a full grognard yet. But I am looking forward to new stories I will hatch next week in my car on the way home, or brilliant evenings I will have running a module I jotted down on a scrap of paper or restaurant napkin.
Because after all - that was the roots of our game. Sparks of imagination mixed with spontaneity! Yes, this is all present in Pathfinder/v.3.5 - and that is still my preferred game of choice. However, it was great seeing the classic game again, alive and well, fully functional to deliver the purest elements of the game played the way Gary Gygax intended it to be. (Purist is not meant to be a value judgment or "better than" word in this sense. The game was pure as though I am saying it contained only the barest bones of mechanics and yet still full represented every aspect of the game. It felt like I had taken something massive and distilled it down to its core components or raw elements or basic ingredients.)
I found again, what I had been looking for, and having rediscovered it will both improve my Pathfinder/v.3.5 experience and provide me opportunity to play First Edition gamestyle as well.
Sounds like great fun. I am contemplating doing the same thing with Labyrinth Lord (I started with Basic D&D [black box 1991]) and it has a similar resonance for me, as 1E does for you. Inspiring stuff.
|
|
Hey Fabes - good to hear from you. Glad you found it inspiring!
Yes, I'm also familiar with Tunnels and Trolls as well as the Swords & Wizardry whitebox.
(For anyone wondering how this pertains to the D&D/ 3/5/d20/OGL messageboards — none of these would have been possible without the OGL.
Of all the previous version, I must admit I am charmed by the Castles and Crusades system, and am considering lifting the "SEIGE engine" mechanic and dropping it into OSRIC 2.0. Right now, in the absence of that system, I've been doing some "ability checks" by asking for rolls under player attributes.
The SEIGE engine, I believe, would enable me to run a base DC of 8 or 12 based on whether the "skill" relates to an ability that is PRIME or not. Then adjust for level if checking an attribute that is PRIME. Pretty easy and quick.
Otherwise - I have an urge to continue playing OSRIC 2.0 this coming Monday, even though my other Pathfinder v.3.5 campaing is still ongoing. Asking the players to change existing PRPG characters to OSRIC would probably feel like a huge power drain for those who grew up with v3.5 - so looks like I'll be running two concurrent campaigns now, with new 1st level OSRIC 2.0 characters operating in the same area, and ostensibly with intertwined storyplots in relation to the other.
What's really nice about OSRIC is that if the players "feel like" playing it, I need absolutely no prep time. So my gameplan is to run Pathfinder on Monday, but I will be prepared to "switch systems" instantly whenever the urge strikes the players.
AGain, they really liked OSRIC and the glimpse of FIrst Edition last week!!! So, I expect this request to pop up quite a bit, and am having fun with this level of diversity. I cannot convey how fun it is to be handling First Edition again - feel like visiting an old house that you grew up in, feels like seeing an old girlfriend and finding out she is still lookin' good.