OSR Interested in dipping my toe into OSR but don’t know where to start. Any recommendations?

[bulletmeat]

That's the response I usually get when I bring this up.

However, C&C includes stuff like "Dwarves find inter-breeding with goblinoids to be the worst of all sins" and "Half-orcs are unsavory and contentious individuals. As outcasts, they have few friends or allies, and often live miserable and lonely lives, wary of all" which (in my opinion) goes way beyond standard fantasy tropes.

I can understand that & I think that comes from the Ahirde setting where goblins & dwarves battled before the birth of most of the gods as well as Tolkien influence. My campaigns don't allow inter-species children so it doesn't really come up in that sense, and goblinoids (orcs, goblins, trolls, hobgoblins, & bugbears) are all grown from the flesh of a dead god bent on evil so there is no love of family/children among them.
I personally think the use of 'race' really needs to go from fantasy games.

 

[Yora]

Background alone should cover it well.
A large portion of race abilities have been cultural affinities from the start. (And few GMs would be sad to have no PCs that can see in the dark.)

 

[TeutonicBerserker]

I think the extent to which BFRPG is based on 3e is greatly overstated, because when it was published it "had" to be because of the uncharted legal area it was among the first to explore.

Apart from ascending AC (and the attendant Attack Bonus), and race=/= class, it's all BX. No unified XP chart and 3e style multiclassing , no feats, no prestige classes, no skill ranks, no d20 universal reolution mechanic, no challenge ratings, no monster templates, it even has the 5 idiosyncratic old style save categories. Correct me if I'm missing something.

 

[Retreater]

Not sure where you are getting the roll under idea though. You might be thinking about 1 or 2e. Normal Siege Engine (saves & skill checks) is Mod+Level vs 12+adversary HD (If your proficient) or 18+adversary HD (if your not proficient). Super simple.

The roll under idea is what you just explained.
If it's your main stat, it's a DC 12 (plus mods) or otherwise it's DC 18 (plus mods). Roll under that target. The goal posts depend on which character instead of a simple bonus that can be added to a d20 roll.
Like, just give characters a bonus if they're proficient instead of making people roll low.
SIEGE is as bassakwards as THAC0.

 

[Aldarc]

If you are dipping your toe in, @Charlaquin, you may also want to be aware that there is a sale on OSR games at DriveThruRPG. Ben Milton (QuestingBeast) also has a recommended list of 50 games from this sale as well.

 

[Mannahnin]

I think the extent to which BFRPG is based on 3e is greatly overstated, because when it was published it "had" to be because of the uncharted legal area it was among the first to explore.

Apart from ascending AC (and the attendant Attack Bonus), and race=/= class, it's all BX. No unified XP chart and 3e style multiclassing , no feats, no prestige classes, no skill ranks, no d20 universal reolution mechanic, no challenge ratings, no monster templates, it even has the 5 idiosyncratic old style save categories. Correct me if I'm missing something.

Thanks for that. It's been a while since I looked at it, and my memory may have been particularly sticking on the ascending AC, BAB, and race/class separation.

 

[schneeland]

The setting though is not my thing yikes!

It definitely has odd and not very practical parts. You can mostly work around the problems by not strictly applying them to player characters (e.g. we have an Orc fighter in our group, but the consensus is that "our Orc is different"), but I agree that the setting is indeed not the strength of the game (which I generally like a lot).

 

[overgeeked]

Of all the OSR games I've read and played, my top two are OSE and DCC.

OSE Basic because it's a cleaned-up reprint of B/X which is the edition I started with but includes the AD&D stuff I played the most with OSE Advanced. It really does seem like the best of both worlds when it comes to those two games. The ease of use of B/X but all the options from AD&D. Plus you can easily convert any Basic or AD&D modules along with the majority of OSR modules, if you're so inclined.

DCC because, despite it being based more closely on the 3X rules set, the rules they added are some of the most evocative and interesting I've seen. Full stop. I love warriors' Mighty Deeds. I love the wild critical hit tables. I love that clerics have to deal with their deity disapproving. I love that clerics have to be careful who they use their magic on and what it's used for. I love that arcane magic is dangerous and varied. I love that patrons actually have goals and want things from the PC caster. I love the details on traveling in a faux-medieval world. I absolutely love the Questing for the Impossible section. Every other line is a campaign seed. The art is mostly amazing, some clunkers sure, but it's a lot of home runs. And the modules. By the gods...the modules. So many great adventures for DCC. I think it perfectly captures that Appendix N feeling of pulp fantasy swords & sorcery. It's chef's kiss spot on.

Separating race from class is trivial. Remove the obvious race stuff from the races-as-class, like infravision, size, and speed, then rename the classes. Elf becomes Cultist. Halfling becomes Pirate. Dwarf becomes Soldier. You just need to figure out what special ability humans get. Done.

 

[the_redbeard]

I never got a group to try C&C - my players were all too stuck on 3.x/PF when I was wanting something closer to an AD&D 2e experience. Now it's largely been superseded by 5e and the rest of the OSR movement in my mind. Admittedly, I never really liked the SIEGE engine - which is a pretty core component to the game (having different target numbers, having to roll under, etc.). Which is a shame because I like a lot of the art and the Trolls seem like cool guys.

There's a lot to like about C&C. I ran it for several years. A d20 mechanic and simple, stripped down classes. And the trolls do seem like good guys. I remember at one point when they got a printing press, they were discussing allowing DMs to send in their house rules and then the trolls would include that in a set of printings of the PHB just for that group. Wow. I don't think that ever came to pass, but as a system tinker-er, they had my attention.

However, I think it's missing things or has them different from other old school rule sets.

• It has no rules for reaction rolls.
• It has no rules for morale.
• It has 'perception rolls' based on wisdom. So a cleric is almost always a better scout than a ranger. (Don't get me started on how perception rolls too often eliminate engaging with the imagined environment and remove interesting game play.)
• Like 3.x, saving throws outside your preferred stats don't go up, or go up slowly (I honestly don't remember atm and can't be bothered to look it up anymore.) This is very unlike games based on pre-3.x D&D. A high level fighter could expect to save against a magic spell. But in C&C, the high level fighter is very vulnerable to a low level wizard with a Charm spell.

I had a few other quibbles after running it for a time. Mostly about editing - no matter how many printings, previous errors that are fixed are replaced by new ones. Ugh.

 

[deganawida]

• It has 'perception rolls' based on wisdom. So a cleric is almost always a better scout than a ranger. (Don't get me started on how perception rolls too often eliminate engaging with the imagined environment and remove interesting game play.)

Tracking, which is part of scouting IMO, isn’t correct in the 8th printing, . I don’t have my book on me, but the tracking section gives either a -10 or greater to non-rangers for tracking.

EDIT: Sorry for delay, and apologies if misunderstanding your complaint..

PHB pg 66: "Non-Ranger Tracking. Any non-ranger making a tracking check suffers an automatic -10 penalty to any die roll."