OSR New changes are afoot for OSRIC!

[Jahydin]

Why should anyone respond to such witty comments as “Oh, and keep Ascending AC the f*!% away from OSRIC; you're either playing 1E or you're not Goddammit.” despite the respondents of the poll making that the third most popular change for the game?

Certainly got a chuckle out of me at first for being so over the top, but then made me kind of sad there's people this angry over what other create.

If you're that passionate about something, time to get to work yourself and not rely on others.

 

[GreyLord]

Certainly got a chuckle out of me at first for being so over the top, but then made me kind of sad there's people this angry over what other create.

If you're that passionate about something, time to get to work yourself and not rely on others.

Why do you think there are clones in the first place?

Of course, if we went with your idea (and in some ways it's not a bad idea) then there would never be a 3e, much less a 5e D&D. If people would only make things instead of taking someone else's creation and changing it to their own preferences (sometimes by destroying or burying that which they are changing it from in an attempt to make it so that their version is the only one available) we probably would have a lot more RPGs that were popular than just certain versions of D&D and the distant other RPGs that trail in it's wake.

In some ways OSR was a response to 3e (that's about when it started, during the 3.x period) and people wishing that instead of buying an IP and changing the game, they had kept the old style of TSR D&D alive (which, ironically, with the idea above, would have stopped with 1e because 2e also was built by others rather than the ones who originally created AD&D, much less D&D).

 

[Jahydin]

Of course, if we went with your idea (and in some ways it's not a bad idea) then there would never be a 3e, much less a 5e D&D. If people would only make things instead of taking someone else's creation and changing it to their own preferences (sometimes by destroying or burying that which they are changing it from in an attempt to make it so that their version is the only one available) we probably would have a lot more RPGs that were popular than just certain versions of D&D and the distant other RPGs that trail in it's wake.

That's not what I'm talking about though. If someone is that passionate over how a game should be written, then they should write it themselves or find another game that's closer to their vision; not scream at other people how to do it for them. If that means making a 1:1 mechanical copy of AD&D arranged to their liking, then awesome.

Note, this doesn't mean it needs to be published. I hope everyone has a cache of proudly written houserules stored somewhere safe.

That said though, OSRIC very much has a mission to be a reference and a lot of people have rallied around it over the years. Although he doesn't have to, I think it would be wise for Mat to take a page from Gavin (OSE) and just create a new game if he wants to experiment.

 

[Jahydin]

Just saw OSRIC 3.0 Player's Guide is on Drive-Thru for free!

Downloading now. Looking forward to flipping through it tonight.

 

[Jahydin]

Never liked requiring the Thief to make a die roll to actually find traps. Makes the class underwhelming at low-level thanks to the poor chance of success. Similar to OSE.

Games that handle this better (IMO, of course):

Castles & Crusades: Higher level of success (50% vs 20%).
Dragonslayer: "Traps can often be found through careful observation and questioning."
ACKS II: "Trap Finding" is not even a Thief skill since any adventurer that looks around appropriately will find it.
ShadowDark: Higher level of success (70% vs 20%).

 

[jonesymat]

Never liked requiring the Thief to make a die roll to actually find traps. Makes the class underwhelming at low-level thanks to the poor chance of success. Similar to OSE.

Games that handle this better (IMO, of course):

Castles & Crusades: Higher level of success (50% vs 20%).
Dragonslayer: "Traps can often be found through careful observation and questioning."
ACKS II: "Trap Finding" is not even a Thief skill since any adventurer that looks around appropriately will find it.
ShadowDark: Higher level of success (70% vs 20%).

I don't know about OSRIC in particular, but in AD&D 1e the Thief find traps ability is for small mechanic traps, like poison needles and the like (and some largish traps, like blades). Very specialized knowledge (which makes sense, this is the type of traps a Thief normally would encounter). Most dungeon traps in AD&D 1e are "found through careful observation and questioning" too. There is a whole text about that in the DMG. A thief wouldn't help finding a pit trap for example, this would be discover with a pole usually, for a classic. And for other type of dungeon traps, a Dwarf and a Gnome are the characters you want to detect traps, not Thieves. They have better chances of success for most dungeons environments.

 

[Jahydin]

I don't know about OSRIC in particular, but in AD&D 1e the Thief find traps ability is for small mechanic traps, like poison needles and the like (and some largish traps, like blades). Very specialized knowledge (which makes sense, this is the type of traps a Thief normally would encounter). Most dungeon traps in AD&D 1e are "found through careful observation and questioning" too. There is a whole text about that in the DMG. A thief wouldn't help finding a pit trap for example, this would be discover with a pole usually, for a classic.

OSRIC is the same way. Key difference is in Dragonslayer the rule applies to small traps too! Seems pretty small, but important distinction for me since I like my low-level Thieves to succeed in their profession. Also, it opens up the possibility of allowing for rolls despite not looking for traps.

Oh, bonus tidbit: I'm looking at a 2e wiki and it mentions Thieves being able to attempt to find traps on a particular object a number of times equal to their level. Pretty sure that wasn't in AD&D?

And for other type of dungeon traps, a Dwarf and a Gnome are the characters you want to detect traps, not Thieves. They have better chances of success for most dungeons environments.

Oh right! I always forgot about this with AD&D. Good call.

 

[Nikosandros]

Your criticisms of trap-finding and thieves are fair and I largely agree with them, but we cannot really expect to see such changes in games that are explicitly clones on B/X and AD&D.

 

[DammitVictor]

Probably because those of us who actually introduce people to the game and such find the idea of trying to change the game to something more akin to 3e as sort of offensive and infuriating. If OSRIC is to be an AD&D, it should be that, not some hybrid fantasy heartbreaker.

Replacing Descending AC and THAC0 with Ascending AC and BAB is a far cry from making it some kind of hybrid game; it is a far less significant change than replacing the Attack Matrix and Weapon versus Armor Table with THAC0 in the first place.

Replacing WP and NWP with skills and feats would be a hybrid game. Giving AD&D classes AEDU powers would be a hybrid. Ditching race/class restrictions and allowing pick-a-mix multiclassing would be a hybrid.

BAB versus THAC0 isn't a significant mechanical change; it's a shibboleth for Edition Warriors.

I know many favor WotC D&D on this site and have no problems with making it closer to WoTC D&D than AD&D, but that doesn't mean that everyone who plays AD&D is in favor of that. The old schoolers may be the minority these days, but that does not make us irrelevant. We may be unpopular with the WotC D&D forms of players these days, but when they hijack our games, it sort of miffs off some of us.

I'm a TSR guy. I'm an AD&D guy, though... I find myself wishing AD&D were a lot more like BECMI than Pathfinder. There are a lot of changes I wish I could make to AD&D, but making it more like any version of WotC D&D-- except technically PO and DF-- aren't among them.

And I certainly don't have any patience for people whining about THAC0.

But BAB isn't more popular than THAC0 because the OSR is being overrun by disenfranchised 3.X fans. It's more popular than THAC0 because it's just common sense-- it is just a very little bit easier and more intuitive, without changing the gameplay or the system math one iota. Regardless of which side of the "debate" you're on, it's a pointless and silly hill to die on and being this antagonistic over it is just... childish... and toxic... and shameful.

 

[GreyLord]

Replacing Descending AC and THAC0 with Ascending AC and BAB is a far cry from making it some kind of hybrid game; it is a far less significant change than replacing the Attack Matrix and Weapon versus Armor Table with THAC0 in the first place.

Replacing WP and NWP with skills and feats would be a hybrid game. Giving AD&D classes AEDU powers would be a hybrid. Ditching race/class restrictions and allowing pick-a-mix multiclassing would be a hybrid.

BAB versus THAC0 isn't a significant mechanical change; it's a shibboleth for Edition Warriors.


I'm a TSR guy. I'm an AD&D guy, though... I find myself wishing AD&D were a lot more like BECMI than Pathfinder. There are a lot of changes I wish I could make to AD&D, but making it more like any version of WotC D&D-- except technically PO and DF-- aren't among them.

And I certainly don't have any patience for people whining about THAC0.

But BAB isn't more popular than THAC0 because the OSR is being overrun by disenfranchised 3.X fans. It's more popular than THAC0 because it's just common sense-- it is just a very little bit easier and more intuitive, without changing the gameplay or the system math one iota. Regardless of which side of the "debate" you're on, it's a pointless and silly hill to die on and being this antagonistic over it is just... childish... and toxic... and shameful.

Something a WotC D&D fan would say.

Unfortunately for you, I disagree as I am a hardcore TSR fan. WotC bought a game and slapped the name D&D on their own game rather than continue with D&D. It's a trend that's continued with every new "edition" ever since, which is how we get a game so different than the original being called D&D today.

Keeping an OSR game true to it's roots is not shameful, but calling those who feel that THAC0 is easier than 2nd grade math (kindergarten actually as that's when I learned addition and subtraction, but I know that's not universal) and no real obstacle, as well as a key item (THAC0 is found in the 1e DMG and found in 1e D&D...so it's not like it was a new thing back then).

AD&D IS more like BECMi than anything like Pathfinder, so I'm not sure why you feel Pathfinder is like AD&D unless you really love 3e that much that you can't tell the difference between the TSR versions of the game and the WotC versions.

I'll play Pathfinder 1e. I'll play BECMI and AD&D. I'll even play 3.X, but my real love in RPGs lies in the TSR versions of the game.