Explain to me what OSRIC is

[Obryn]

OSRIC: ...You might find OSRIC's presentation and explanation of the 1e rules to be clearer.

YES.

I am really enjoying reading through my 1e DMG, but holy cow; Gary doesn't so much teach you the rules, as lecture about the rules and tell you anecdotes about them. Then you need to figure them out from context.

And the organization is seemingly stream-of-consciousness.


SPEAKING OF...

I'm unclear, still, on surprise. I get what happens if two groups meet unexpectedly. I get what happens when one group knows the other is there, but not vice-versa. But... what about ambush situations? Like "My thief just successfully snuck up on that guard"? Would I still roll for surprise, or is it just kind of automatic?

Thanks

-O

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

But... what about ambush situations? Like "My thief just successfully snuck up on that guard"? Would I still roll for surprise, or is it just kind of automatic?

A Thief sneaking up on the guard would roll Move Silently*. If he succeeds, he's not making any noise that the guard can hear. I would give the Thief a bonus (perhaps a large bonus, depending on the situation) to surprise: he'd have at least a 3:6 chance to surprise, and maybe 4:6 or more if he's out of the guard's line-of-sight and the guard doesn't usually look behind him, or is distracted, or whatever.

For a BTB reference, look at pg 102 of the Players Handbook. Under "SILENT MOVEMENT," the PH say that a Thief moving silently (or someone magically silent) has "...an improved chance to surprise an opponent or slip past it." Additionally, under "SURPRISE," the PH says "Surprise is usually expressed as a 2 in 6 chance for all parties concerned...assume a party of characters, moving silently and invisibly, comes upon a monster. They have a 4 of 6 chance to surprise..." That suggests that silence adds 1:6 in a typical situation, and invisibility adds another 1:6. Again, that is in a typical situation. You might grant a higher modification depending on the exact situation.

* - note that if the Thief fails his Move Silently roll, that doesn't mean the guard instantly is aware of him. It just means that he's not completely silent, and it's possible (and more likely) that the guard notices him. You can assume a Thief who fails to Move Silently is still moving quietly, but without perfect stealth (i.e. much like a non-Thief trying to sneak around). In this case, you'd still roll for surprise, but wouldn't give the Thief any special benefit (e.g. no additional 1:6 bonus for silent movement).

 

[Obryn]

That makes perfect sense, thanks!

 

[Goblinoid Games]

This.

C&C's unlike the true retro-clones in that:

1) It's not free in .pdf form; and
2) There's no automatic third-party content license.

A few other interesting things about C&C. I'd agree that it isn't a retro-clone exactly, but it is a "clone" in the sense that it doesn't bring anything new to the table. It is a simplified clone of 3.x at its core, which is one reason it is so successful. Then the periphery of it has the trappings of a simplified AD&D, so in a way it as an amalgam. I'm not being down on C&C at all when I say this, it's just my observation. One thing someone will mention if I don't is that C&C has the SIEGE engine. Personally I don't see this as something new so much as it is something adapted to a different purpose. It is essentially an attribute check system, which to me seems inspired by the way non-weapon proficiencies are handled in AD&D 2e...basically all skills in 2e are based on an attribute check with a modifier. But anyway I guess I digress.

 

[Simon Atavax]

Okay, a few questions to clarify things for me.

OSRIC is a 1e clone.
Castles and Crusades is a clone of what?

Labyrinth Lord is a clone of what?

And are there any reasons to buy any of these games, if you have access to the original books?

This has essentially been my issue with these games. As cool as they are (and I have immensely enjoyed reading OSRIC as well as C&C; haven't looked at LL yet), I would rather have the original books. Not long ago I ran a D&D Basic/Expert game (lasted two sessions before imploding, but that's a different thread ). It took a week or so before the game began to order extra copies from eBay of the Moldvay/Cook books so that each player had one.

If I wanted to run AD&D 1e, I'd do the same thing. There are tons and tons of old 1e PHB/MM/DMG books out there, many in very good condition, most available dirt cheap.

 

[Obryn]

This has essentially been my issue with these games. As cool as they are (and I have immensely enjoyed reading OSRIC as well as C&C; haven't looked at LL yet), I would rather have the original books. Not long ago I ran a D&D Basic/Expert game (lasted two sessions before imploding, but that's a different thread ). It took a week or so before the game began to order extra copies from eBay of the Moldvay/Cook books so that each player had one.

If I wanted to run AD&D 1e, I'd do the same thing. There are tons and tons of old 1e PHB/MM/DMG books out there, many in very good condition, most available dirt cheap.

I don't care much for C&C. As mentioned by Goblinoid Games, I don't think it brings much valuable to the table for me. It doesn't inspire me to play, and it's kinda ... I dunno, drab. Others love it, and I can see some of the appeal, I just don't feel it.

If I want to run AD&D, I'll run AD&D. I don't think C&C adds any value to my D&D experience, and in fact I think it detracts somewhat.

At any rate, I'll disagree with you about OSRIC. I've found the differences between AD&D & OSRIC to be minimal. It's useful for me so that my players have copies of the rules. It's also been extremely useful because it, unlike AD&D 1e, is well-organized.

-O

 

[Simon Atavax]

I don't care much for C&C. As mentioned by Goblinoid Games, I don't think it brings much valuable to the table for me. It doesn't inspire me to play, and it's kinda ... I dunno, drab. Others love it, and I can see some of the appeal, I just don't feel it.

If I want to run AD&D, I'll run AD&D. I don't think C&C adds any value to my D&D experience, and in fact I think it detracts somewhat.

At any rate, I'll disagree with you about OSRIC. I've found the differences between AD&D & OSRIC to be minimal. It's useful for me so that my players have copies of the rules. It's also been extremely useful because it, unlike AD&D 1e, is well-organized.

-O

This is one reason why I can, in fact, see the appeal of OSRIC: in helping people make sense of the AD&D 1e books. I love them, but by God, they can be hard to digest.

 

[Obryn]

This is one reason why I can, in fact, see the appeal of OSRIC: in helping people make sense of the AD&D 1e books. I love them, but by God, they can be hard to digest.

I just made a post about this very thing.

Still, they are a boatload of fun to read. The whole Artifacts section, for example, is my favorite section in any RPG, to-date.

-O

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

At any rate, I'll disagree with you about OSRIC. I've found the differences between AD&D & OSRIC to be minimal. It's useful for me so that my players have copies of the rules. It's also been extremely useful because it, unlike AD&D 1e, is well-organized.

Thanks for the kind words, but, I'm anxious not to overstate the case.

OSRIC is a gateway and an enabler for the 1e system. It's not supposed to be a substitute for it. While it's theoretically possible to play it on its own--and it works very similarly in actual play--1e is best read in Gary's words.

 

[Mythmere1]

This has essentially been my issue with these games. As cool as they are (and I have immensely enjoyed reading OSRIC as well as C&C; haven't looked at LL yet), I would rather have the original books. Not long ago I ran a D&D Basic/Expert game (lasted two sessions before imploding, but that's a different thread ). It took a week or so before the game began to order extra copies from eBay of the Moldvay/Cook books so that each player had one.

If I wanted to run AD&D 1e, I'd do the same thing. There are tons and tons of old 1e PHB/MM/DMG books out there, many in very good condition, most available dirt cheap.

I think the authors of any of these clones would prefer that people went to the original books rather than the clones themselves. But in many, many cases, there's a bridge, of sorts, needed between the modern way of writing rules and the way they were written pre-2e.