OSR I never should have picked up Old School Essentials…

[AnotherGuy]

Funny enough, I've been looking at OSE, C&C and B/X as one of the new systems to jump to once our 5e campaign is done. Posts/threads like this with people having similar views to mine cement my thought process in this regard.

 

[deganawida]

Funny enough, I've been looking at OSE, C&C and B/X as one of the new systems to jump to once our 5e campaign is done. Posts/threads like this with people having similar views to mine cement my thought process in this regard.

I looked at C&C, but ultimately decided against it. I mean nothing against it, but after re-reading my PoD 2nd edition PHB, I really don't have the desire for complex game systems* anymore. I crave simple rulesets that I can add on to and tweak as I and my players desire.

*Yes, to me, C&C qualifies as complex, at least compared to OSE.

 

[Grendel_Khan]

On a purely unscientific basis I would say they're about the same size. Goodman's bigger as a company, but I think there's more 3pp stuff coming out for OSE, even if you wrap MCC in with it. That's totally not substantiated by anything, although I've been doing my OSR News Roundup for four months and there's definitely more stuff coming out for OSE.

Yeah I think you're right about more 3pp for OSE. DCC has such a specific tone and style. It's hard to pull that off in an authoritative way if you aren't Goodman Games. I sometimes wonder if DCC and OSE benefit from staying neck-and-neck, so OSR folks can sort of bounce back and forth between them, (similar to specialty shops clustering on the same street).

 

[AnotherGuy]

I looked at C&C, but ultimately decided against it. I mean nothing against it, but after re-reading my PoD 2nd edition PHB, I really don't have the desire for complex game systems* anymore. I crave simple rulesets that I can add on to and tweak as I and my players desire.

*Yes, to me, C&C qualifies as complex, at least compared to OSE.

Fair enough. I was thinking more along the lines of the SIEGE mechanic (where the DCs for easy and difficult tasks are set) not necessarily character creation. Its been a while since I looked at it. It's mostly to replace the skill checks of 5e or when a player wants to do something off-the-cuff. I'm not sure how OSE handles it. I haven't gotten around to do the research.

 

[Mallus]

So how is OSE different from a system like Labyrinth Lord?

My group is switching to 5e for our next campaign, but we enjoyed a 2-year LL game during the pandemic and I can't rule out going back to a simpler system in the future.

 

[thirdkingdom]

So how is OSE different from a system like Labyrinth Lord?

My group is switching to 5e for our next campaign, but we enjoyed a 2-year LL game during the pandemic and I can't rule out going back to a simpler system in the future.

They're pretty similar. OSE is a faithful reproduction of the B/X ruleset. LL has a 20-level range while OSE is the original 14 (affecting max spell levels), LL gives a cleric a spell at 1st level, and a couple other smaller differences. I prefer the lower power scale of B/X and OSE.

 

[deganawida]

Fair enough. I was thinking more along the lines of the SIEGE mechanic (where the DCs for easy and difficult tasks are set) not necessarily character creation. Its been a while since I looked at it. It's mostly to replace the skill checks of 5e or when a player wants to do something off-the-cuff. I'm not sure how OSE handles it. I haven't gotten around to do the research.

Pretty sure (though bear in mind I'm still just reading it) it's roll under attribute.

 

[Mezuka]

I looked at it and even did a few solitary D&D sessions with it. It is really a well-made document. Much better than flipping back and forth through my old Basic and Expert books.

But ultimately I prefer the AD&D1e (Greyhawk) vibe of Castles & Crusades.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

I loved C&C back when it first came out and for years after. At that time, when 3e was getting to be just too much for me, it definitely looked a whole lot simpler than it does today. Especially as 5e has moved away from the complexity of 3e and 4e.

It's hard to argue against OSE's simplicity and elegance - it's easily the best retroclone out there for modeling the B/X experience.

I looked at C&C, but ultimately decided against it. I mean nothing against it, but after re-reading my PoD 2nd edition PHB, I really don't have the desire for complex game systems* anymore. I crave simple rulesets that I can add on to and tweak as I and my players desire.

*Yes, to me, C&C qualifies as complex, at least compared to OSE.

I agree that DCC RPG has a distinct tone and style, but disagree that you have to be Goodman Games to do it justice. The Gongfarmers Almanac volumes, for example, are filled with excellent work by non-Goodman Games folks.

Yeah I think you're right about more 3pp for OSE. DCC has such a specific tone and style. It's hard to pull that off in an authoritative way if you aren't Goodman Games. I sometimes wonder if DCC and OSE benefit from staying neck-and-neck, so OSR folks can sort of bounce back and forth between them, (similar to specialty shops clustering on the same street).

 

[thirdkingdom]

I loved C&C back when it first came out and for years after. At that time, when 3e was getting to be just too much for me, it definitely looked a whole lot simpler than it does today. Especially as 5e has moved away from the complexity of 3e and 4e.

It's hard to argue against OSE's simplicity and elegance - it's easily the best retroclone out there for modeling the B/X experience.



I agree that DCC RPG has a distinct tone and style, but disagree that you have to be Goodman Games to do it justice. The Gongfarmers Almanac volumes, for example, are filled with excellent work by non-Goodman Games folks.

Yeah, there's plenty of DCC stuff out there that's pretty amazing, Crawling under a Broken Moon, for one, is a fabulous 'zine.