I am getting a very strong urge to run an OSRIC game here on the boards, for the liberation from the implicit battlemat mentality of 3e. I am not going to use any published adventure, and am dabbling with the idea of making my own world, like the old days, with a definite medieval, low-fantasy, realistic feel. It is something that has been swelling in me since I started to run pathfinder. The PFRPG is the best iteration of 3e to date, in my opinion, and running it is a major headache. I have smart players. I want to get them in a complex where a ten foot pole is more important than a perception check. Is that too much to ask?
If you are interested in an OSRIC pbp, you have first dibs.
Thank you for your kind words about my musings upthread. We seem to be on a similar journey in search of simple gaming joy with less crunch.
|
Taliesian Hoyle - YES. we journey together.
Free your mind, and the rest will follow.
After coming off 1 week of a refreshing OSRIC experience(mentioned upthread), I decided to skip my usual 2-4 hour preparation for my weekly Pathfinder RPG Beta homebrew game. Instead I spent about 20 minutes (just like in the old days) outlining my ideas, listing NPC names, and jotting down cool ideas on 1 page of a small notebook.
Funny thing - I couldn't find my notebook just prior to the session. Usually I have things typed out/stored on computer files/printed/stacked/organized in folders..... (basically I usually have done so much prep work that there would be no way I could lose all of it.)
The point - after recently learning, and validating, that the OSRIC system a.k.a. First Edition, is a viable game - and plays very well, very fluid, very fun. .... I resolved to just get a blank sheet of paper, jot down my notes again and begin play.
Another great session! We continued with our Pathfinder RPG characters again, but I allowed the monsters to gain surprise, I didn't use battle maps and upped my descriptions, and I stayed focused on players and their dialogue rather than my detailed notes or system details.
Hey, I love PRPG and v.3.5 - - - still my preferred game of choice. However, playing OSRIC is very very liberating. One instantly gets reminded/grounded in what is really important/essential to a great game experience.
To be clear: I've never said 1e/OSRIC is better. But its got every ounce of essential DNA to have a smokin' good time!!!!!!!!!! (And, I am suggesting going back to source - for the generation that never knew this game, is a great way to reconnect with the roots, traditions, and amazing flow of the game, as designed by its creator. Iterations/editions/legal ownership rights be damned, - - - the game's creator "knew" something special, something very special, that is worth rediscovery.
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. [...] 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.
[other interesting points snipped]
That is my take.
My take -- 3.5 D&D is really just AD&D with lots and lots (and lots) of houserules.
So it has the disadvantages of a game with lots of houserules:
- It's more difficult for the DM to make something up on the fly without conflicting with an existing rule.
- The probability that the DM & players will think some of the rules are stupid approaches 1 as the number of rules approaches infinity.
- The sheer number of conditional bonuses and modifiers is confusing and slows down play.
- Trying to make everything fit in a "one-size-fits-all" rules system sometimes doesn't make much sense (e.g. sometimes using a d20 roll for a given type of check is too random or not random enough).
- Etc.
But it also has the advantages of a game with lots of houserules:
- Since the rules have been carefully considered beforehand (in most cases), they usually harmonize well with each other compared to decisions that are made on the fly (e.g. instead of four separate systems for attacking with a sword, pummeling, grappling and overbearing, we can have one mostly unified attacking system).
- If a situation is covered in the rules, players can have a reasonable guess at whether they will succeed or fail before they attempting something dangerous (e.g. should a level 5 fighter be able to broad jump 10', or is that clearly impossible in the D&D universe?).
- Having more rules generally means that players have more opportunity to customise their characters and guide their development more.
- Having many types of possible actions can sometimes stimulate the DM's or the players' imagination.
- Etc.
So there are trade-offs to using 3.5 D&D vs. AD&D. Personally, I wouldn't want to go back to AD&D; losing skills and feats are the "deal breakers" for me.
Of course, a good AD&D DM can come up with intelligent rulings on the fly (e.g. clerics should be able to identify different kinds of undead, wizards should know about alchemical materials, etc.), but as the DM makes more and more rulings, the system will eventually become a big mass of house rules anyways, similar to 3.5 D&D.
I think a better approach (for me) would be to take 3.5 D&D and strip away rules rather than take AD&D and add rules. Maybe that's like what Castles & Crusades (simplifies 3.5 D&D) does as opposed to OSRIC (starts with AD&D but with plenty of room to make it more complex).
Just my $0.02, of course. Note that I'd love to play (or DM) an AD&D game some time, but that'd be more about nostalgia than wanting to get rid of pesky rules (like skills & feats).
I ran a C&C game for nearly a year and I loved it! The players had a lot of fun with it too, and over all it's very much the game I anticipate playing/running again.
I started playing early the game with the black box of OD&D, & C&C took me back to that time. I loved how most of time planning an adventure was actually planning the adventure, not stating up NPC's or looking up rules for this special ability or spell. I've recently moved back 'home' and I'm trying to introduce Roleplaying to other family and friends. I've got my 10 year old nephew playing in a Star Wars Saga game. I soon hope to get my sister (his mother) involved in a C&C game.
I love 3rd edition. It's a fabulous rules set, but that's the problem (as others have noted), there's too much focus on rules. Getting back to the basics with C&C or OSRIC (or heck, just one of the older editions) is nice, because it focuses back on what's important: playing the game and not the rules.
|
I think a better approach (for me) would be to take 3.5 D&D and strip away rules rather than take AD&D and add rules.
I found this a while back. While microlite20 may be a bit too stripped down, it's an amazing example of how much was added on to the core rules.
|
|
By the way.
We were were talking of Labyrinth Lord for Moldvay/Cook D&D and OSRIC for AD&D.
There's also Swords & Wizardry as the reprint of Original D&D (1974) through the OGL. It's a free PDF from Lulu (there's also POD avalailable).
|
|
Yes - it is a growing community of first edition gamers using either the actual first edition, or some of the following alternatives:
>Labyrinth LordTM is Daniel Proctor's work and is a premier retro clone supported by Goblinoid Games and many others.
>The Basic Fantasy Roleplaying GameTM is Chris Gonnerman's brainchild, and is highly extensible and maleable to represent any of the others. I think Barratara games wries Basic Advanced and Master mods for these.
>Castles & CrusadesTM is the brilliant new chasis of d20 system merged with some elements of v.3.5 but mostly the rules-light feel of First Edition. Troll Lord Games is run by Chenault and he worked with Gary Gygax in recent years. (If any of you haven't see the Gygaxian fantasy rpg series books, have a look if you can find them.)
>OSRICTM is the primary work I have been discussing and studying these past few weeks. Stuart Marshall and Matthew Finch have done one hell of a job. OSRIC 2.0 IS A FIVE-STAR RPG BOOK IMHO. It includes a monster manual and huge spell collection - and I have yet to see where it deviates in any significant way from 1e. Very fast play - total retro-clone at its very best.
>Swords and WizardryTM is the particular work of Matthew Finch and belongs to Mythmere Games. I really liked reading his recent White Box edition. What a smart guy.... if anyone hasn't read Matthew's Primer for Old School Gaming, then please go do so today!
>Tunnels & Trolls, I think is like a cousin to OD&D... this one I haven't looked into, but I heard from someone its kind of evolved parallel like some of the other early hominid species that never evolved into homosapiens. (er, make that two topics I may not know that much about.... although, I once had a crate with the bones of Dr. Johansen's, LUCY, in my dorm room—that was one truly creepy night! But it all made for an A+ presentation in Ancient History class, ... but I digress).
There are others.... and retro-gaming is on the rise. Perhaps I'll use some of this thread to talk more about these in the future. Thanks Benoist Poire for pointing out the systems we're referring to.
>As for Microlight20 - Joela - there really isn't anything to "testplay/playtest"; and I think that's the point. It truly is microlight, like .... teeny tiny micro light, kinda like using just primary colors to paint with from a system perspective.
I've just converted some PCs from a 3.5 PbP to Basic Fantasy, and it made me grin at how quick it was, and strangely liberating.
e.g The Gray Elf Paragon 3/Wizard 1 became an Elf Fighter/Magic-User 4. Easy-peasy!
I love how you can sum up a character on an index card.
|
|
>As for Microlight20 - Joela - there really isn't anything to "testplay/playtest"; and I think that's the point. It truly is microlight, like .... teeny tiny micro light, kinda like using just primary colors to paint with from a system perspective.
I played MicroLite Thieves' World at a con a year or so ago. A lot of fun, super fast play. Good as long as everyone is okay with players and DM winging it a lot - making up modifier and whatnot on the fly.
|
Whilst I can't be bothered with the clones I was tempted to run a few BD&D or 1E games as a return to nostalgia.
Hmm, C&C doesn't float my boat and after reading it I see no reason to buy OSRIC (I own the source material/inspiration) but of the two I'm glad OSRIC is out there, it's a great way for those who haven't had the opportunity to go old school to try something remarkably similar.
Personally I'd recommend finding in the following order;
- 1E (If you can find it go with the original)
- OSRIC (A worthy substitute if money and/or time stop you from going with 1E)
- C&C (I don't like this personally but a lot of people do so it must be worth a look)
Nice one OP, I've found this thread interesting an informative. Never would have gone back and given those two games a second look without it.
Well, in the sense that each PC no longer has a list of skills to keep straight, as well as 3 or 4 different ACs depending on circumstance, along with spell lists comprising a boat-load of different things. It has lifted a great deal of pressure from my mind, as the players weren't all that knowledgeable of 3.5 anyway, and at least one wasn't happy about the sheer amount of rules (and he seems happier now, as we discovered we both started with Basic D&D).
I'll still enjoy different systems; e.g. trying out Arcana Unearthed/Evolved at the moment, and my main game is 4E. It really is a case of choosing what works best for each group.
|
|
"...- 1E (If you can find it go with the original)
- OSRIC (A worthy substitute if money and/or time stop you from going with 1E)."
Hey Horus—sounds like we have refreshingly common ground on this recommendation. I wouldn't have known this a month or so ago when I started this thread that 1e is highly playable and relevant today, but I'm fairly confident that someone owning/dusting off/or purchasing used 1e TSR books will find them remarkably playable and chiefly the best recommendation for getting back into, or into for the first time, First Edition gaming.
And, as horus points out, if you'd like either a FREE electronic version of 1e, just download OSRIC 2.0 today and get going. The first 35 or so pages are a quick read. It contains a character sheet for printing, or one can head over to the Mad Irishman Productions Web site for some classic goldenrod or b/w 1e character sheets.
In any case, my findings are that pulling out 1e provides a great, though yellow-paged, approach to getting back into it (as Horus says, highly optimal). However, in a modern 2009 sense, I have found through personal experience, that there is also nearly equal value (and the experience is nearly equal) to just downloading OSRIC 2.0. If printing, you will enjoy the clean white pages but also the attention to detail that Stuart Marshall has put into the production of this 386-page "tribute" to first edition.
Which ever you choose, I welcome (and ask for) those who are doing so, to feel free to jump into this thread to share experiences.
I will try to do so as time goes on.
Man, I love this thread! It takes me back ages (okay, only 20 years or so, but still...) and makes me juiced for some 1E gaming goodness. I've spent most of the morning downloading free stuff from Troll Lord Games and DriveThruRPG and my question is: if I'm only gonna play ONE of these systems, which should it be: OSRIC or C&C?
I haven't read a whole lot on either (oh, I also downloaded Swords & Wizardry from Lulu!), but I'm liking the C&C "look and feel".
Thanks Pax and all others who have posted so far!
OSRIC is 1E with errata, clarifications and a facelift.
C&C is derived from d20 but takes elements from 1E, 2E and OD&D to make something new but familiar.
My only advice would be, whichever you and your group thinks will be most fun.
|
|
What Fabes said.
Honestly, I think it comes down to "do I want to play 1st ed, including descending AC, rolling 1d6 to force doors open, and all this 'quirkiness' (by modern standard) that makes the game awesome as it is; OR do I want to play 1st ed in vibe yet with a unified mechanic, ascending AC and other d20 stapples that make the game 'smoother' to look at?"
OSRIC really is 1st ed. through and through.
C&C has the advantage to bridge 1st ed. and d20 mechanically (making both systems' modules usable with it) while remaining 1st ed. in feel.
N.B. I know I said I was myself decided on C&C, but I'm starting to doubt LOL. I'm itching for some AD&D or Swords & Wizardry action, especially after reading through Holmes again.
|
|
Man, I love this thread! It takes me back ages (okay, only 20 years or so, but still...) and makes me juiced for some 1E gaming goodness. ...if I'm only gonna play ONE of these systems, which should it be: OSRIC or C&C?
Thanks, hedgeknight - glad you're gaining benefit from this thread, I have too.
Your question, was actually the question I had in my mind when I began the thread... that is, "do I run C&C, or OSRIC/1e etc."
I sense that for those who joined the game after skills and powers, toward the end of 2.5, maybe the unified mechanic thing is important - afterall thats why 3.5/Pathfinder RPG is my game of choice. And, no doubt C&C etc. style is a fine game. However, imho, I really wanted it all and first edition via. OSRIC truly delivers. Even the holmes stuff, OD&D, Molvey and Wizards & Sorcery stuff seems to truly deliver the experience. Everything—from the old school art to the simple mechanics make it marvelously fast, fun, nostalgic, genuine/authentic, and did I mention that it reminded me of all the very best parts of the game I enjoy. The advice to go with what your players want is usually sound, however, in cases where players have never seen this stuff, I would recommend you go with what YOU are truly looking for because as you get excited, the excitement will transfer to them.
Based on your note, it looked like you're investigating Finch's White Box Swords & Wizardry - most cool. Also be sure to check out OSRIC if you have not done so. Based on this past month's look at both, I favor OSRIC primarily for the full feel of first edition over some of the original stuff, but in actuality one might suggest it could all generally be called first-edition-style gaming. The AD&D 1e seemed the full refinement of the original game plus extended house rules from Gary's table and mind. I agree with Benoise Poire who says that OSRIC is 1e through and through, and it also includes greater clarity, is expansive and costs nothing, is extensible because right now there appears to be a rise of first edition fans and newcomers. Many materials (if you are in want of new modules) are fairly compatible, however, with both style games. Even the classic stack of 40+ modules I own can be played with either Swords & Wizardry or OSRIC.
In short, I'm recommending 1e/OSRIC, but S&W and the others are fine. C&C makes the biggest departure in this. C&C is a fine game, but goes its own way, while the others really do bring home to your table, the game's creator vision of classic play, and for me, at least, returned me home to where it all began.
|
|
I'm not sure if anyone can help, but I noticed that the famous Papers&Paychecks guy, Stuart Marshall himself, has passed on the mantle of OSRIC leadership to Matthew Finch. I'm wondering if there are Swords and Wizardry fans out there who may have heard how he is going to handle both fronts OD&D and 1e? Has anyone heard from him recently?
|
While I can't comment at all on the leadership of OSRIC or Matthew Finch and what-not I wanted to leave a brief note.
Having just discovered OSRIC earlier today (I think through this very thread) and reading through the first 35 pages or so has made me 'nostalgic' for a 1e-esque game. Reading the posts here just amplified that feeling for me. Your posts here have been fun to read, thanks to all involved.
Darn this itch for 1e, I haven't even played it in the first place!
There is a quick question I would like to ask. Do you guys, who have played 1e and OSRIC, C&C, etc. feel that someone mostly unfamiliar with the rules could get a good game out of it? It wouldn't be about the nostalgia for me (well maybe in the small way of "Hey, Gary Gygax played like this!") since I haven't played before. Could a new guy get as much out of it as an older fellow?
Could a new guy get as much out of it as an older fellow?
(Note: My comment assumes OSRIC is pretty close to AD&D, since I haven't looked at OSRIC.)
Probably, but there might be one or two places where you think "Well, that's kind of arbitrary" (e.g. demi-human class/level limits, or the assassination table). But the arbitrariness is some of the "old school" charm as well.
|
|
Do you guys, who have played 1e and OSRIC, C&C, etc. feel that someone mostly unfamiliar with the rules could get a good game out of it? It wouldn't be about the nostalgia for me (well maybe in the small way of "Hey, Gary Gygax played like this!") since I haven't played before. Could a new guy get as much out of it as an older fellow?
100% yes.
I'd love to hear the specifics of whether you mean new/old guy as player or GM, but my answer is 100% yes.
Characters take less than 15 minutes to create. Adventures need only be little more than outlines drawn on a bar or restaurant napkin. Then get playing. As Finch points out in his forward, the game is played fast, and the GM is quick to arbitrate. That said, there is opportunity for as much or more character development in any way the players or GM takes the game because so much less is quantified. Instead, the game is played quite organically in-the-moment.
A new guy might enjoy the speed, ease, and simplicity, but the game is not simplistic - it is still solidly as much fantasy role-play as v.3.5 or Pathfinder. There is less focus on the rules, though the bits there are enough to execute the full essence of the game.
For example, as a GM, I built a small 3-panel GM screen out of PAIZO mailers. In the center I keep only 1 chart. The attack chart for the four archetypal classes is all you really need to run the game. There are also a few ancillary charts that are needed (but only a few), such as the Cleric turning table. The rest is quite a consistent experience. You can expect to roll the % die more often, and you're brining in the idea of a simple Morale mechanic. You'll execute things in 1 minute intervals, rather than 6 seconds so your players are, "free to move about the cabin" as I say. That is, let them describe how they run up to the creature and bash it. Allow them to jump and dive, and poke around with a 10 foot pole.
To make it the very best experience, there is a certain paradigm-shift required. And to be very simple about it... go read Matthew Finch's free article called Primer for Old School Gaming. Its free from a bunch of places including Lulu. Once you've got the idea that the VISION of the game is triangulated around the vision in the head of the gamemaster - you're good to go.
In short, old players and new players alike will find as much to enjoy in the game or more.
This is all my opinion of course - and I won't engage in any comparisons between editions in this thread. If I had more time I'd be more concise, or provide more detail, but I am away from my books at the moment. Hope that gets you started.......... any other questions?
|
|
Thanks Pax Veritas, that was a great brief "introduction". Moving at a fast pace seems really intriguing, I hate slowing to a crawl at the table especially during key moments. The simplicity of the system attracted me as well; just reading the races and classes gave me most of the info I needed.
As for your question, something tells me I'd be GMing the game. I doubt anyone else would want to print off the rulebook but me. That and many of my players are kind of "stuck" on 3rd edition, new (or old in this case) might scare them :)
I'm going to read Matthew Finch's Primer for Old School Gaming and see if anything else arises. Thanks again Pax.
|
|
Glad to hear it. Enjoy the primer.
P.s. Kinkos does a great job with a color cover, 402 b/w pages, spiral bound with plastic cover and back, all for under $40. But Osric 2.0 provides a full monster manual as you know, so I printed double-sided and it came out great! Compatibility with original 1e manuals is nearly seemless, especially my old FF, MMI and MMII. I can also pull in C&C monsters if needed, but many of those are already represented in OSRRIC. For those playing on-the-cheap the .pdf is free from knights-n-knaves.com and is all you really need to get started the same night.
P.s. I recommend finding some Zocci dice (precision/gamescience) to go with your game! Its like a great glass of wine with the perfect steak. (But let's not get ahead of ourselves - let me know what you think of the Primer!) Enjoy.
|
|
I doubt anyone else would want to print off the rulebook but me.
The beauty of it is.... they don't have to!!! The less they know about the mechanics, the more they're into their characters and the better the flow of the game. Part of the paradigm shift will be listening to players ask you about their surroundings, as they test/explore them intuitively and in-character. Challenge yourself to leave many things to chance. If you think there's a 50% chance that there would be a monster, a trap, a treasure.... just roll some dice. Let the game surprise even you as-you-play! Have fun.
|
|
There is a quick question I would like to ask. Do you guys, who have played 1e and OSRIC, C&C, etc. feel that someone mostly unfamiliar with the rules could get a good game out of it? It wouldn't be about the nostalgia for me (well maybe in the small way of "Hey, Gary Gygax played like this!") since I haven't played before. Could a new guy get as much out of it as an older fellow?
Complete agreement with Pax: 100% yes. There's a reason why these games were so inspiring and grew the hobby at large, and that wasn't because they would have been the only games on the market place (as a matter of fact, they weren't, but for OD&D obviously).
As for printing the rules, same thing (again!) as Pax: Only the DM needs to have a copy of the rules. Especially with OD&D, AD&D and retroclones, it's much better if the players don't know the DM's rules (DMG for AD&D, DM chapters of Mentzer boxed sets, etc). That's part of the magic of the game.
I encourage you to download the free PDF authored by Matt Finch, A Quick Primer on Old School Gaming. It will make a lot of the stuff we're talking about here a lot more obvious.
By the way, speaking of OD&D: That's the way I'm now going for my next campaign! That "itch" I was talking about earlier spawned a whole lot of thinking on my part and encouraged me to go back to the roots of the game. With OD&D and Supplements, as well as clones like Swords & Wizardry, Spellcraft & Swordplay and Epées & Sorcellerie (in French), I couldn't be happier right now!
|
|
Thanks you two, "knowing the rules" is so familiar to me because for years my sole gaming system was d20. If you don't know the rules there you're up a creek, as they say. I've also become disillusioned, of sorts, with certain things in 3.5. It's just minor things that I've grown somewhat tired of, "playing the rules" fits it nicely.
Still have yet to read the Primer, I'll try doing it tonight or tomorrow evening. Any other suggestions you care to offer for this potentially new OSRIC GM (In a couple months time anyway, must finish current campaign)?
Be brutal. Make them sweat. Put in a few challenges that need common sense to solve, like a trap that uses fluid dynamics, or a canyon that they can roll boulders down into some orcs. Adjust things on the fly. End on a cliffhanger. Concentrate on making the world believable. Condition the players to ask questions about their environment. Be very exact and clinical in descriptions. Use the dice rolls as a last resort. Reward smart and punish stupid. Follow the rules for wandering monsers, to make the party wary of loitering. Get medieval. Be descriptive. Allow the characters to avoid combat sometimes. Any time you hear the players say things like "you can't do that! you are a fighter!" smack them on the head. If they get in too deep, and are going to die, let them, and then roll up new characters and go again.
Let their new characters find the half-eaten remains of the old, and then watch them do their damndest to get the equipment back from whatever creatures killed them.
Be brutal.
|
|
Thanks you two, "knowing the rules" is so familiar to me because for years my sole gaming system was d20. If you don't know the rules there you're up a creek, as they say. I've also become disillusioned, of sorts, with certain things in 3.5. It's just minor things that I've grown somewhat tired of, "playing the rules" fits it nicely.
Still have yet to read the Primer, I'll try doing it tonight or tomorrow evening. Any other suggestions you care to offer for this potentially new OSRIC GM (In a couple months time anyway, must finish current campaign)?
I have a few ideas, but want to refrain from asking you to drink from a fire hose of information. Matthew's primer will give you the essentials you need.
Since you asked, here are a few other thoughts... Remember, you're attempting to do something "different" so let your imagination grow beyond what you learned in the d20 decade. There is a recent particular article by James Malisewski that might be of value to you, along with pining through his past blogs. He talks about the original Expert Set "end game" of d&d. He points out that despite its name, d&d was always meant to be about much more than the dungeon delve. Widerness, town, city, social & political developments enrich the progression of characters. The paradim shift is toward force of will and character development, rather than ever-growing detailed powers-feats-abilities. Check out: Grognardia
My point is that in addition to letting your imagination run wild and free, think about the progression and growth of your players in terms of the classic 9 levels of play as aspiring adventurers, followed by a series of levels of play where they are the lords and ladies, barons and baronesses of the realm. This may be a lot to think about initially, so just have fun with the primer and with OSRIC 2.0.
I would just add to remember to let it flow, play it fast, get more scenarios and encounters into a session than ever before. This is not about "rushing" through anything, but rather its about skipping over the boring bits - get to the fun, the action, and the role-play.
One other little bit - listen really well to the discussions of your players. Encourage the group to discuss their plans aloud. Adjust any adventure on-the-fly to the plans of the party. Be ready to throw-away any or all of your planning in exchange for the incredible in-the-moment opportunity to be spontaneous, creative, imaginative, organic, fast, naturalistic, internally-consistent/coherent, and fun.
Unlike current editions - there isn't as much that you need to educate yourself on, or spend countless hours "getting right". Gygax/Arneson created a game that leveraged the creativity and imagination of folks like you and me, without much need for writers, publishers, and excess cannon, supplements, accessories, or statistic blocks. Sit down, imagine, roll dice, have fun - the story is a by product of the game, and a by product of explosive spontaneous group creativity.
Free your mind, and the rest will follow.
|
|
I finally got around to reading the Primer; what a golden nugget that was! It got me really thinking about running an OSRIC game. Perhaps after my current game quiets down I'll start one.
Thanks for the recommendations as well guys, I'll have to go over them in greater detail another time. I appreciate all the advice you have given so far.
|
|
I finally got around to reading the Primer; what a golden nugget that was! It got me really thinking about running an OSRIC game. Perhaps after my current game quiets down I'll start one.
Thanks for the recommendations as well guys, I'll have to go over them in greater detail another time. I appreciate all the advice you have given so far.
Much welcome, Michael! Have fun!
Don't hesitate to ring the bell again, we're never too far away. ;-)
Pax,
Thank you for starting this post. You've inspired me to re-read the first edition PHB & DMG, to print OSRIC and to compare all of them to C&C. The results are very interesting (to me).
My formative years were spent as the DM of a first edition game. In fact, I don't think I was EVER a player in 8 years. Once I left RPGs in the late-80s, I only briefly checked in with D&D again-- first when the new 3rd edition was published and later when my old gaming group told me that 4e was being published and shouldn't we get the band back together again?
My first thought when I looked at the 3e PHB was, 'Would I have been as excited about D&D as I was if this is what I had to master at 10 years old?' I always liked 3e (and Pathfinder) as a player, but I would never have wanted to DM either-- for all of the rules-crunching reasons you mentioned earlier.
So when I found C&C, it seemed to offer me a simple game to run as a DM as well as a game that's evocative of the 1e I played with d20 mechanics. It helped enormously that Fantasy Grounds has a ruleset for use in online play-- I've been able to DM 2 games and confirmed for myself that I'm playing with the right ruleset.
Nevertheless, your post got me thinking that I should re-explore my roots just to remember how the game was played back then. So I printed my pdfs (and OSRIC) and wow, what a difference to have them in my hands again!
I've been inspired to try playing 1e as a player this time. Thank you.
I'm recruiting for a retro-clone PbP in the Gamer Connection area. Which system is yet to be decided, although I am leaning towards Swords and Wizardry or Microlite74.
|
|
I know this is a little late given the last post date of the thread. But I have also had a group have a bash at 1e/C&C/OSRIC 2.0. Had 6 players, surprisingly none had played anything before 3rd ed. D&D before. From a players point of view they can't believe that the cover art has suffered so much from the 1e books (last printings of PHB, DMG, MM). They all said that the covers made them want to play! Anyhow, C&C was a little foreign to me but quick to pick up. However I think it diverged a little too far from 1e for my liking (talking mechanics here). So winner of the day was the covers of the 1e books, and OSRIC 2.0 for actually playing the game. Some complained about the size of OSRIC 2.0, but printed double sided and bound it's not really a problem and is only one book to carry around.
4 of my 6 players* said that for a fun game without the pressures of working out "combos" (feats+skills+spells = mega-damage) they were completely sold.
v3.x still has a great place at the gaming table, it's flexibility is unparalleled in the "D&D" World, but for stupidly fun old school OSRIC 2.0 wins from my DMs point of view. At zero dollars (ok printing costs) for a complete system capable of years of fun - well say no more.
S.
*2 of the players were people who had only played Vampire and Call of Cthulhu before. They felt that compared to v3.x (playing an AP) that the 1e (broadly speaking here) seemed to allow them to concentrate more on the character and less on the maths...
4 of my 6 players* said that for a fun game without the pressures of working out "combos" (feats+skills+spells = mega-damage) they were completely sold.
I love 1st ed as much as the next guy, but let's remember that munchkinism/"Monty Haul"-ism existed back then, too...
|
|
...but let's remember that munchkinism/"Monty Haul"-ism existed back then, too...
Sure, you'll get no quarrel here on that point - I like the other thread that's going now on the PAIZO boards that explores that topic as well. It was obvious, back in the day, that +4 Avengers and Staffs of the Magi could overpower. Also, we'd quickly recognize players who had three 18s in their attributes, then later, players would arrive with fighter PCs with 18/00 strength. As an historical off-set, the mileau of old school meant that PCs didn't create magic items, and magic was scarce. Back in the late 70s and early '80s if you mentioned PCs could "buy" magic items, you might hear some snickering from more seasoned GMs beacause that would have been the sound of a novice running a game. The mystique of magic and its scarcity was inherent in the setting (until later... norms in the gaming community shifted).
And to tie this dicussion back to the theme of the thread, I'd say in my research, the retro-clones still for the most part adhere to the idea that magic is scarce, and the sale of items as a norm would be unusual.
(But I wouldn't debate someone who's particular group may have had a different set of norms.)
Edit: Oh.... I just realized that many may not be aware that "Monte Haul" dungeons didn't originally connote "Munchkin" players, so much as they were references to lessor quality dungeons where "behind door number 3 was a staff of the magi, a Recorder of Ye'cind, a sphere of annihilation, and a ring of three wishes". If memory serves, the reference was that GMs (and other players) often didn't like it when gamers would show up to the table with PCs they'd played in some other GM's "Monte Haul" adventure where they picked up rediculously unbelievably powerful crap and wanted to still use that character in the game. Truly, unlike the "bad-rep" that's been created by certain early spoof-games, on the whole, original games weren't necessarily all about killing stuff and collecting rediculously powerful items and treasure. Monte Haul games, a term coined during the latter 1e era and persisting through the 2e era, had a different meaning than munchkining, min/maxing, etc. But outside of this minor point of SEMANTICS, Hogarth is right that it had existed back then too.
|
|
...but printed double sided and bound it's not really a problem and is only one book to carry around.
.... seemed to allow them to concentrate more on the character and less on the maths...
Thanks Stefan.
The beautiful part of OSRIC is that the GM can just have the first 35 pages or so available for the players to create characters with. Outside of those few pages, and the spell descriptions, there isn't really any technical need in old school/1e gaming to provide players with any of the other rules.
With MUCH less focus on rules, players are driven to explore and roleplay much more. In OSRIC, and arguably most 1e games. The players don't need to know the rules. It is actually better if they don't in terms of capturing the imagination.
To those new to this - you may have questions. Please feel free to ask, myself or Stefan, or Benoist, or any of the others would be happy to explain how this adds to the "flow" of your game in this style.
...but let's remember that munchkinism/"Monty Haul"-ism existed back then, too...Sure, you'll get no quarrel here on that point - I like the other thread that's going now on the PAIZO boards that explores that topic as well. It was obvious, back in the day, that +4 Avengers and Staffs of the Magi could overpower.
Speaking of which, remember the debate in the Letters page of Dragon whether an ancient red dragon would make a challenge for a party of high-level adventurers with "+5 everything"? Those were the days -- flame wars were so slow before the internet became popular...
|
|
Good memory, hogarth.
I was re-reading an article by our game's co-inventor, e.g.g., last week. It was in Dragon magazine... like a short Gygax article where Gary gets on a soap box somewhere in the 1990s and asks games to stop using the term "fanboys". He really wanted to keep gamers from fighting with each other or calling one another names. He wanted the community to stay coherent and have a "brotherly" or "sisterly" kinship with one another.
Unfortunately, I find myself unable to honor that kind of altruism in light of a company that seeming pits gamers against one another. (Its easy to notice that they are dividers, not uniters.) Ever since they purchased TSR, it seems they've had a kind of egotistical attitude toward gamers, and with their recent public displays of alienating middle aged or older fan base, I say they've encouraged the flame war as a way to "divide and conquer." (Not to mention other seemingly innocent ways they've tried to "erase" 30+ years of gaming tradition and history. PDFs anyone?)
I'd like to stay the course with this discussion thread about OSRIC 2.0 vs. 1e. vs. C&C. Yet, related to the rise of first edition games, and the return to the roots of our game, is the apparant deviation from tradition, and the violation of trust that comes with the stewardship of our game.
That is... without trying to start another flame war here - it is worth mentioning that YES, those were simpler days. But the very best days of gaming are right here, right now. The return to first edition style gaming coupled with the persistance of v.3.5e with Pathfinder Fantasy Role-playing Game seems like we have the very, very best days right now.
Those interested in the roots and stylings of early gamers, a viable way still to play, can play 1e or C&C or OSRIC 2.0. And, we can also continue to play my personal game of choice v.3.5/PRPG.
So, yes Hogarth - you have me reminiscing, but I cannot thing of a better time to be a gamer that right here, and right now=) Thanks for helping me reflect to realize that.
In the interests of fairness, I wanted to return to an earlier comment about Hackmaster from Kenzerco. While I have not played the game, I have read the rules and am fairly frequent over at Kenzer's website.
The game does contain parodic elements; however, don't let that discourage you from taking a closer look at it. Yes, there are forms of fireball at just about every level, and, yes, there are gummy bear golems (if memory serves)--but it should be noted that, on several occasions, David Kenzer and Jolly have commented that they were obliged to put in the silly elements to "get it past" the powers that be at WotC.
As for old school elements, it does seek to capture some key elements from ad&d. The DM is in control of the game and, while a bit played up, the "adversary" of the players. Hackmaster attempts to play up some of the danger and unpredictability of 1e. Characters are not born heroes, they are folks with heroic leanings who come to do heroic things. Most importantly, the game attempts to reestablish the uniqueness of each of the character classes. It does try to bridge the gap for those who, as a poster has stated here, require things like feats and skills. The number of said items are also limited.
Again, I am not the best spokesperson for Hackmaster as I haven't played the game, but it is too easy to dismiss it as a parody and not look at the core mechanic. While they may have started out with the basic premise of a parody when drafting the game, they have taken it quite seriously. The game does seem to have that "barton fink feeling" of old school d&d.
Besides, they are hard at work on the next edition of the game--a complete rewrite to make it uniquely theirs. They, like Paizo and several other companies, have also been affected by the pulling of d&d licenses. From what I've read of the "basic spoilers" on their website, it looks like it'll be a fun game.
I don't see why not! I played 2E for years and have loads of supplements for it. The imagination utilised back then for settings and optional rules was great.
Me too would love to see some 2e clones pop up. I really need to look into finding a 2e phb as mine is in a bad way.
There just isn't as much love for 2E... :( I don't know of any retro-clone projects for it.
|
|
Shame, for me 2nd ed. was 1e with a bit of a tidy up. We confined ourselves to "core" (PHB/DMG/MMs) only. We tried a few of the "complete" books but we weren't so fussed. The historical settings books were cool and we had a Roman campaign for a while.
The thing that I most liked about 2e - the initiative system. Still the best in my option. We use to do individual, but never found it slowed things down too much. People actually changed "fighting styles" depending on what they were facing. Verses an evil wizard out would pop the daggers! Wizard specialists and Priest spheres were great for making different characters.
Actually I even liked the "skill" system, simple but worked. Speaking of skills the way they handled thieves/bards for their "thief skills" was inspired. Again no two rogue types really needed to ever look the same. Oh and fighter (only fighters) got weapon specialization with ONE weapon!
I only a few months ago brought a copy of the core "black 2e" books. Artwork aside <cough> well worth the $5US each I paid for them.
So I guess with we throw 2e into the mix I would choose it above 1e for some "not as old school" fun.
OK that does it, I've convinced myself to inflict 2e on my gaming group! Actually I may inflict 2e and the entire Dragonlance campaign on them...
:)