Best OD&D system?

[S'mon]

EDIT: How is LL distinctly B/X, as opposed to BECMI, in what it presents? I'm just curious.

LL goes to ca 20th level (some tables extend higher) but does not have the additional complexity of the Mentzer Companion and Masters sets. Even the magic item tables seem derived from the Cook-Marsh Expert set. There's none of the Mentzer stuff like additional options at Name level, and it has the Cook-Marsh multiple Fighter attacks rule, for instance.

 

[Mythmere1]

I would go with Swords & Wizardry (0e) if you don't need guidelines and details for playing an old school game, OSRIC (1e) if you like things a bit more detailed. It sort of depends on WHY you want to play an old school game, and whether you've played one before. 0e involves a huge amount (compared to modern games) of "DM Fiat." 1e gives you a bit more detail, so it's a bit easier to DM. A skilled DM - I mean one skilled at flavor and on-the-fly creativity - could handle Swords & Wizardry straight out of the box. But the quality of any of these games depends heavily on the quality of the GM, and making sure he isn't just treating them as 3/4e "lite." He's got to get a feel for making rulings rather than rules, and that's a mental leap into a fairly distinct and probably unfamiliar type of gaming.

 

[Goblinoid Games]

I wish some professional games company's had Daniel Proctor's layout skills. I recently got StarSIEGE, which seems like a good game but the layout is a real pain - and no Contents page to help.

I think you probably just made everyone out there who is actually trained in doing layout cringe! But thanks for the kind words. I got an email a while back from someone who actually does layout, offering to do a new layout since some parts of mine really bothered him. But, what can I do? Oh well, I just keep plugging along.

As far as editions go, I think if you want the "authentic original edition" experience you might wait for the Swords & Wizardry white box version to come out.

Also if you want sort of the rules clarity of slightly later versions but the character aspects of the original version, you might try Labyrinth Lord with the "Original Edition Characters" (RPGnow or Your Games Now, also free text at the Open Game Content Library) player's handbook I recently put out.

Hope that helps, and really no matter what you choose it will be a blast.

 

[jdrakeh]

I think you probably just made everyone out there who is actually trained in doing layout cringe!

Maybe, but he's right — the layouts in Labyrinth Lord and Mutant Future blow some so-called "professional" products away.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Rules Cyclopedia is quite neat. If you like what it's basically a compilation of, in the first place. That (Basic, [. . .]) being the stuff I started the whole RPG thing with, so I'm probably biased, yes.

But um, so many different uses of the term 'OD&D', it gets confoozing.

 

[S'mon]

Maybe, but he's right — the layouts in Labyrinth Lord and Mutant Future blow some so-called "professional" products away.

Yes, I think layout/presentation is something whose importance is often underestimated. The clean, very accessible layout of Labyrinth Lord and Mutant Future is a big factor in making these my games of choice for PBEM play - along with the free pdfs being good for recruiting players.
I think this, along with a sort of fresh-faced enthusiasm dripping from the pages, is a big reason why Labyrinth Lord is so well received and has been the old-school game of choice for so many people.

I think Basic Fantasy and Swords and Wizardry have pretty good layout, though not at LL/MF standard. TLG's Castles & Crusades 1st printing had terrible layout, it's been improved a lot but still is nowhere near as clean and accessible as LL/MF, one reason I wouldn't recommend C&C to a complete novice. StarSIEGE is even worse, and it's a much more complex game (I've been struggling with SS over the past few days, assisted by advice from the author on theRPGsite).

 

[Goblinoid Games]

That's awfully nice of you guys to say

I'll keep doing the best I can!

 

[Hairfoot]

"Scrappiness"? I'm not sure what you mean.

I mean the layout and presentation of the books. I've become too accustomed to professional editing!

Part of the appeal of OD&D is in having only 3 base classes, so that the players can (and must) define their PCs narratively instead of through "builds". I also want a system specifically without a thief class, so that excludes everything from BECMI on.

Looks like S&W is the go, but thanks for all the recommendations. Now I know I've got the right tool for the job.

 

[S'mon]

S&W is a good rules framework. It does not have adequate GMing advice included, but if you have "The Underworld and Wilderness Adventures" from OD&D, that's all you need.

 

[FATDRAGONGAMES]

Maybe, but he's right — the layouts in Labyrinth Lord and Mutant Future blow some so-called "professional" products away.

Agreed- I'm hoping our upcoming RPG stuff looks as good as LL's layout. Dan did a SUPURB job on it.