OSR 1E vs OSRIC

[lumin]

I bought 1st Edition AD&D Core rule books a few months ago and love them. I liked it so much I sold my 3.5e books and haven't touched any of my other game books since.

My one (minor) problem, though, is the unorganized nature of the rules. Rolling up a new character is kind of a pain because of the amount of page-flipping required to find everything. This is especially embarrassing when trying to introduce a new player to the game.

I have been really thinking about purchasing a print version of OSRIC to hand to the people at my table that may want things laid out in a more user-friendly fashion. My problem with this, however, is that I want to make sure OSRIC is still the same game as 1E. I have thumbed through the free OSRIC PDF, but have found quite a few differences in rules.

Now I was under the impression that, other than some copyrighted D&D material being removed or replaced, OSRIC was the same game as 1st Edition. For example, maybe I'm just missing some of these rules in my PHB/DMG, but I don't remember seeing any racial adjustments for thief skills (pg 369) in 1E. I also don't remember seeing Fighter vs Unskilled bonuses. Now, granted, some of these rules have the text, "(optional)" next to them that indicates that these rules are not found in 1E, but many of these *extra* rules are not marked in any way to differentiate them from the classic game.

Now this is what bothers me a little. Why go through the trouble of remaking a game in the image of classic 1E D&D for us old-school fans (minus copyright stuff of course) and then throw in extra rules that never existed back then? Seems to me that this would simply cause incompatibilities and frustration at the table if one player were using 1E and the other was using OSRIC. At the very least, these extra rules should be marked in some way so players can clearly identify which are "OSRIC-ified" and which are pure D&D 1E.

I guess my question here is, is there a comprehensive list of changes I could refer to, to help influence my decision about buying OSRIC? Is this game too incompatible with the original game to be played together at the same table? Are to-hit, exp, skill, etc tables too different to mesh with the original without a massive headache?

 

[Water Bob]

I bought 1st Edition AD&D Core rule books a few months ago and love them. I liked it so much I sold my 3.5e books and haven't touched any of my other game books since.

I've got a soft spot in my heart for 1E AD&D as well. I'd love to run a campaign using just those rules one day.

Besides the nostalgia, I love all the little quirks. I love the armor vs. weapon type chart in the PHB. I love that 1st levle Rangers starts with 2d8 hit points. I love how weapon speed factors are treated in the game. I love what Gygax says about hit points, and that, at -1 to -3, the character could still be conscious.

My one (minor) problem, though, is the unorganized nature of the rules. Rolling up a new character is kind of a pain because of the amount of page-flipping required to find everything.

Be warned, though. I'm not sure anybody really knows how to run 1E AD&D combat by the book. It's a mess (hard to understand), and even today, flame wars rage about it is supposed to be done "by the book". Talk about flipping back and forth, looking up rules for different things that influence combat!

You may want to check out the Dragonsfoot forum. Lots of people there who love 1E AD&D and can even help you along your journey to figure out 1E AD&D combat.

Oh....and they'll know a good deal about OSRIC, too.

Good luck!

 

[lumin]

I've got a soft spot in my heart for 1E AD&D as well. I'd love to run a campaign using just those rules one day.

Besides the nostalgia, I love all the little quirks. I love the armor vs. weapon type chart in the PHB. I love that 1st levle Rangers starts with 2d8 hit points. I love how weapon speed factors are treated in the game. I love what Gygax says about hit points, and that, at -1 to -3, the character could still be conscious.

Completely agree. I love the flavor text like castle building and town caste systems. I also loved Gygax's instruction that killing the "big bad guy" is, in reality, the easy part. Hauling off the treasure and finding a place to store it, is what will be difficult.

Everything about 1E feels less like a run-and-gun combat game, and more about role-playing in a plausible medieval-fantasy simulated world. I love the gritty Swords and Sorcery (Conan, pre-1990s fantasy) feel of the game, as opposed to the Epic Fantasy (LotR) theme that 99% of fantasy is all about these days.

I also prefer the 1E d100 skill checks and stricter class roles, as opposed to the dumbed-down d20 mechanic employed today (even Castles and Crusades doesn't satisfy).

That's why I'll never go back to 3rd or 4th edition. 2nd edition was great too, unfortunately, it seemed to lose a little bit of charm in a way I can't really explain (class kits and no assassins rubbed me wrong somehow).

Also, I am a witness to the fact that 1E's attractiveness isn't just all about nostalgia. I actually started my RPG career with 3rd edition about five years ago, having never played 1st or 2nd at all in the 80s or 90s. 1E holds its own in a real mechanical and thematic way that doesn't require fond memories to enjoy.

Be warned, though. I'm not sure anybody really knows how to run 1E AD&D combat by the book. It's a mess (hard to understand), and even today, flame wars rage about it is supposed to be done "by the book". Talk about flipping back and forth, looking up rules for different things that influence combat!

Yeah, thus the reason why I'm interested in OSRIC. I like that OSRIC reorganizes everything in a much more logical fashion, with char advancement info all in the same place. I desperately want to introduce more "new-schoolers" to 1st Edition, but I fear Gygaxian prose will scare them away. The companion monster book, Monsters of Myth, is also fantastic, quite possibly the best monster supplement I've ever seen in an RPG. It hearkens to a LOT of Lovecraft/weird fantasy creatures that can make your game a lot creepier.

 

[Water Bob]

Everything about 1E feels less like a run-and-gun combat game, and more about role-playing in a plausible medieval-fantasy simulated world.

I think 1E lends itself--almost begs for it--more creativity on the part of the DM.

Don't get me wrong. I like all versions of D&D that I've encounter, but I also realize that they're different games.

I'm now learning 3.5, and I must say, I do like what I see (especially the Conan RPG version of 3.5). But, my next campaign may be based on 1E.

I also prefer the 1E d100 skill checks and stricter class roles, as opposed to the dumbed-down d20 mechanic employed today (even Castles and Crusades doesn't satisfy).

I don't think I agree about the stricter class roles. I like how 3.5 makes it so anybody can learn to pick a lock--they just make it easier for theives to learn it. And, I like Conan's multiclassing--just about any type of character can be created using Conan's core classes mixed together.

I desperately want to introduce more "new-schoolers" to 1st Edition, but I fear Gygaxian prose will scare them away.

Suggestion: Don't let them read the prose.

A 1E idea that has gone by the wayside over the several editions is that the DMG is for the DM's eyes only. Read the Preface and Intro. That book is not for players to read. It's a codex for the DM to refer to for guidance when running his game.

If the players must, let them read the PHB, but keep the DMG off limits.

That way, they're not exposed (as much) to the Gygaxian prose, but better yet, they look to you for answers.

That's the way it should be.

They don't need to know rules. They just need to tell you what they want their character to do. The need to know "rules", imo, became more pervasive with 3rd edition.

A player need only imagine his character in the game world, in a specific circumstance. He just tells you what he wants his character to do.

You tell him if he needs to roll anything.



You're in the middle of a pine forest, and you hear a woman scream. What do you want to do?

I look around. What do I see.

Nothing. Just forest.

Which way does the sound come from.

To your left, you think. It's hard to tell. The close mountain walls make for an echo.

I know, I'll climb a tree to get a better vantage point. Maybe I can see farther.

OK, roll your STR or less on 4d6.

4d6! That seems quite hard!

You're in leather armor, and the branches on these trees do not start to poke out of the tree until about 20' up. These are tall pine trees. It's hard to scale.

I'll take my armor off, and I'll grab a piece of rope from my backpack. I'll wrap that around my waist and the tree trunk, using it to scurry up the tree until I can reach the branches.

(I love how 1E forces a player to "think" and "describe" instead of just relying on his Climb skill.)

OK. That sounds good. Roll 3d6 for STR or less to get up there.

Let's see. My STR is a 16. I rolled...and 11.

You scurry up into the branches.

Can I see?

You need to get higher.

OK I'll climb higher now that I'm among the branches.

Roll 2d6 for STR or less.

I rolled snake eyes!

Oh no! You fell! Make a Save vs. Death Magic to grab one of the limbs at the last second.

I made it!

Whew. OK. You're hanging from a branch. But, this is a pine tree. It's branches are thin. The limb is bending with your weight. It looks like it's going to snap. You're about 30 feet up in the air, so you'll take 3d6 damage if you fall.

I'm going to hand-over-hand it closeer to the base of the tree.

Sounds good. Roll DEX or less on 2d6.

Made it.

You did....you've hand walked to the base.

Can I touch the base with my toes?

You bet.

OK, I'll brace myself, wrap my legs around the base as best I can, then hand walk to the trunk.

You're breathing hard, but you did it.

I'll then transfer to the trunch, wrapping my arms around the tree.

You can't reach all the way around the tree, but you're strong enough to keep yourself pasted to the trunk as you slide down to the ground. You're spitting up bark and pulling splnters from your cheeks when you land. What are you going to do?

Put my armor back on.

There's the scream again. Gut wrenching. Are you going after the girl?

Nope. To hell with her. I tried. I'm walking in the direction I was originally before I heard her.



I love how, with 1E, something as simple as climbing a tree can be quite fun. The whole scenario loses something when you add in the 3.5 skill system. Many times, what I've laid out above gets shortened to, "What's my Climb DC?"

I have to strive to keep my 3.5 game like the a 1E game.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

I think 1E lends itself--almost begs for it--more creativity on the part of the DM.

Definitely agree. This is 1E's greatest strength is its reliance and encouragement of DM and players working together to make more out of the game than is handed to them on the pages.

A 1E idea that has gone by the wayside over the several editions is that the DMG is for the DM's eyes only. Read the Preface and Intro. That book is not for players to read. It's a codex for the DM to refer to for guidance when running his game.

I don't entirely agree or disagree. When 1E was written the prevailing style of play was certainly a more antagonistic one. Players have to try and PRY information out of the DM and the DM LOOKING for ways to "ambush" the players. The 1E rules and plenty of quotes from Gygax's prose therein certainly reflect that. The DMG was indeed deemed off limits but there WAS also a lot of useful information in there which there was no reason - even given the antagonistic setup - to keep from the players. Things like the combat matrices, saving throw charts, TONS of details on combat procedures. That wasn't "secret" stuff. It was stuff that players used CONSTANTLY.

But there definitely was also stuff that players DIDN'T have any business seeing - magic items, how to set up and run a campaign, handling XP and treasure, rules for NPC's, etc. It's really that latter stuff that needed to be kept from players and why they were told to keep their schnozzes out of the DMG. The only reason the other stuff was IN the DMG was the way the 1E rules were being assembled and published. It was all piecemeal. Gygax was collating rules from many sources, it wasn't all his own devising and some of it he didn't even like or personally use. The DMG was published a full year after the PH and in the interval it was still being collated and written.

That's why the 1E core books are so disorganized. Players should not necesarily be discouraged from reading the DMG because of the information in there that they SHOULD be learning. DM's simply have to take steps to keep players from reading things that they shouldn't/don't need to - even if it's just as simple as ASKING them not to read certain parts. As for the confusion of Gygaxian prose they simply have to be told firmly and repeatedly that the DM runs the game at their table - not the ghost of Gary Gygax. If there's confusion - ask the DM (whom Gary advised and expected to be adding/omitting/modifying the game anyway).

They don't need to know rules. They just need to tell you what they want their character to do. The need to know "rules", imo, became more pervasive with 3rd edition.

Oh my, yes. 3E was built specifically around the idea that mastering the manipulation of the rules was where much of the fun was supposed to be. By doing that, however, they forgot the far greater importance of roleplaying interaction that made the game so popular in the first place.

I love how, with 1E, something as simple as climbing a tree can be quite fun. The whole scenario loses something when you add in the 3.5 skill system. Many times, what I've laid out above gets shortened to, "What's my Climb DC?"

I have to strive to keep my 3.5 game like the a 1E game.

Ditto. 1E always did need to be revised for issues of clarity, balance, changing understanding of how an RPG actually can/does work, general informational organization, etc. But it's still a better basis to work from than the nearly over-designed 3rd Edition.

1E was a game I loved immediately, grew to know its intricate faults and frailties, and willingly overlooked them while I sought improvements. 3E was a game that I also loved immediately, thought had cured so many of 1E/2E's ills, took longer to learn its faults and frailties - but they grate on me worse than 1E ever did and "ruled out" so much of what made 1E work as well as it did in its overreaching, mistaken approach to RULES.

But I digress...

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

Now I was under the impression that, other than some copyrighted D&D material being removed or replaced, OSRIC was the same game as 1st Edition. For example, maybe I'm just missing some of these rules in my PHB/DMG, but I don't remember seeing any racial adjustments for thief skills (pg 369) in 1E.

Player's Handbook, page 28, second table.

I also don't remember seeing Fighter vs Unskilled bonuses.

Player's Handbook, page 25, first column, last paragraph.

Now this is what bothers me a little. Why go through the trouble of remaking a game in the image of classic 1E D&D for us old-school fans (minus copyright stuff of course) and then throw in extra rules that never existed back then?

I did not do that, anywhere.

I guess my question here is, is there a comprehensive list of changes I could refer to, to help influence my decision about buying OSRIC?

OSRIC omits plenty. Weapon speed factors, weapons v AC type, monks, bards, psionics, construction and siege, etc. In absolutely no case does OSRIC include any rules that aren't in 1e.

There are a couple of monsters and a couple of magic items that are in OSRIC but not in 1e. I'll award experience to anyone who can name one.

Is this game too incompatible with the original game to be played together at the same table? Are to-hit, exp, skill, etc tables too different to mesh with the original without a massive headache?

No. It's all completely compatible.

 

[grodog]

I have been really thinking about purchasing a print version of OSRIC to hand to the people at my table that may want things laid out in a more user-friendly fashion. My problem with this, however, is that I want to make sure OSRIC is still the same game as 1E. I have thumbed through the free OSRIC PDF, but have found quite a few differences in rules.

I'm sure Stuart and I would be happy to help clarify or answer Qs about the rules, if needed.

If you're looking for a nice, affordable copy of OSRIC, you should check out the printing of the rules we did for GaryCon back in March: All Products > Store $26 for a 400 page hardback.

Be warned, though. I'm not sure anybody really knows how to run 1E AD&D combat by the book. It's a mess (hard to understand), and even today, flame wars rage about it is supposed to be done "by the book". Talk about flipping back and forth, looking up rules for different things that influence combat!

You may want to check out the Dragonsfoot forum. Lots of people there who love 1E AD&D and can even help you along your journey to figure out 1E AD&D combat.

Oh....and they'll know a good deal about OSRIC, too.

If you're looking for general AD&D rules advice, the 1e Forum on DF @ Dragonsfoot • View forum - 1st Edition AD&D is a fine place to start, but I think you'll find better OSRIC-comparative advice via the Knights & Knaves Alehouse in the By the Book AD&D forum @ KNIGHTS & KNAVES ALEHOUSE • View forum - By The Book AD&D

Yeah, thus the reason why I'm interested in OSRIC. I like that OSRIC reorganizes everything in a much more logical fashion, with char advancement info all in the same place.

Thanks for the kudos---reorganization was definitely part of the intent in putting OSRIC together.

The companion monster book, Monsters of Myth, is also fantastic, quite possibly the best monster supplement I've ever seen in an RPG. It hearkens to a LOT of Lovecraft/weird fantasy creatures that can make your game a lot creepier.

Indeed!---Monsters of Myth is an excellent monster book (which you can also buy from Black Blade at the link above/in my sig, if you're so inclined). If you're also looking for good 1e monsters, check out XRP's Malevolent & Benign @ Malevolent and Benign

If you happen to be going to GenCon, you should definitely check out the OSRG booth #1541, details @ The Old School Renaissance Group Black Blade's printing of OSRIC, as well as MoM, our 1e version of DCC#7, and other 1e titles (including 11x17 graph and hex paper pads) will be available at the booth.

There are a couple of monsters and a couple of magic items that are in OSRIC but not in 1e. I'll award experience to anyone who can name one.

Hmmmm, probably not fair for me to play on this one

 

[Ranes]

Oh my, yes. 3E was built specifically around the idea that mastering the manipulation of the rules was where much of the fun was supposed to be. By doing that, however, they forgot the far greater importance of roleplaying interaction that made the game so popular in the first place.

Really? I don't think I got the memo.

I do remember and miss the days when looking into the DMG was considered bad form. And a player who had his own monster manual was just a cheat.

Lumin, I honestly think you should buy all of grodog's books. But I also want to point out that 1e PHBs in good condition can be picked up really cheaply on eBay, too. If your players balk at Gygax's prose, tell them they'd better get used to it, because you're going to start talking like that from now on.

 

[Water Bob]

If you're looking for a nice, affordable copy of OSRIC, you should check out the printing of the rules we did for GaryCon back in March: All Products > Store $26 for a 400 page hardback.

Also available at Lulu, too, I think.

And, you can download the pdf for free: K&K OSRIC Download pdf

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

Also available at Lulu, too, I think.

And, you can download the pdf for free: K&K OSRIC Download pdf

Absolutely! Anyone interested should check out the free .pdf and decide if OSRIC's what they want before spending any money. There are plenty of people who play only using the free .pdf.

If you're in the market for a hardback, Lulu always have it via print on demand for the cost price, which is $26.

This price point dictated that Black Blade's hardback would also have to cost $26, but Black Blade's came from an offset printer.

Black Blade's version is a little different from Lulu's. The text is almost the same throughout--Black Blade's includes fixes for a couple of typos that I sent them at the last minute, but you'd have to be a serious enthusiast to notice the difference--and both are 400 pages.

However, Black Blade's printing is on better quality (thicker, heavier-grade) paper. It includes extra artwork replacing the blank chapter end pages in vanilla OSRIC. And finally, the Black Blade version has red endpapers at front and back just inside the covers.

BBP printed 300 copies originally, and I'm not sure how many are left. I suspect GenCon in August will make a serious dent in their supply.

If you don't want to pay $26--and I realise there are people who can't afford $26, or who may be buying for family members or for a whole gaming group at a time--then there's a softcover. It's only available from Lulu and it costs $15.70.

British people should seriously consider either buying from Lulu or else, if buying Black Blade's print, getting together in a group to make a multi-copy order. Black Blade's version costs serious money in shipping to the UK.

I'm pleased to say that with the current exchange rates, Brits can get Lulu's softcover for £9.80, and you only have to pay shipping from Milton Keynes. Wait til they're having one of their 20% off sales to save even more money.