OSR I never should have picked up Old School Essentials…

[John Desmarais]

I am curious to persue it, I don't yet have the books... but this seems in line even with the old BECMI Companion and Master sets which added options akin to AD&D but didn't quite seem 'right.'

It would seem that the B/X/BECMI/OSE systems really shine with just the Basic/Expert level stuff without too many trimmings.

I played a fair amount fo D&D way back when using the Rules Cyclopedia - which is kind of a single-book compilation of BECMI. To my mind, it was every bit as "advanced" as AD&D insofar as considering extra options to be advanced - but the options were different (many of which I liked better than AD&D). OSE/AF is much more along the lines of importing AD&D stuff in the B/X core of OSE. In some ways, I think I would have preferred an OSE w/ all the extras from CMI imported in (for example, I preferred BECMI & RC Weapon Mastery over AD&D Weapon Proficiencies).

I think ultimately, if your preference is straight B/X, OSE/AF probably as very little to offer you. If someone is looking for an easier to read AD&D workalike, OSE/AF can be pretty pretty attractive. I'll end up using it myself. My typical group of D&D players prefers AD&D over B/X, and I don't care enough to be a curmudgeon about it.

 

[Musing Mage]

I played a fair amount fo D&D way back when using the Rules Cyclopedia - which is kind of a single-book compilation of BECMI. To my mind, it was every bit as "advanced" as AD&D insofar as considering extra options to be advanced - but the options were different (many of which I liked better than AD&D). OSE/AF is much more along the lines of importing AD&D stuff in the B/X core of OSE. In some ways, I think I would have preferred an OSE w/ all the extras from CMI imported in (for example, I preferred BECMI & RC Weapon Mastery over AD&D Weapon Proficiencies).

I think ultimately, if your preference is straight B/X, OSE/AF probably as very little to offer you. If someone is looking for an easier to read AD&D workalike, OSE/AF can be pretty pretty attractive. I'll end up using it myself. My typical group of D&D players prefers AD&D over B/X, and I don't care enough to be a curmudgeon about it.

Yeah, I have the RC myself, but more as a collectible. I played the BECMI stuff in the 80s but alas the staying power of our games back then was not the strongest so we never did any high level games with all the trimmings using that system.

My preferred Edition is also AD&D 1st, which I guess is why I'm curious about how they strike the balance and adapt the AD&D stuff over to B/X, and whether or not it works intuitively. (which from what I'm reading here doesn't necessarily seem to be the case...)

 

[Mannahnin]

My preferred Edition is also AD&D 1st, which I guess is why I'm curious about how they strike the balance and adapt the AD&D stuff over to B/X, and whether or not it works intuitively. (which from what I'm reading here doesn't necessarily seem to be the case...)

I have played in OSE games using Advanced classes and perhaps another rule or two (like additional spell acquisition for MUs and Elves) and been generally happy with what they've done. The classes, in particular, they've done a good job keeping balanced with the core seven.

 

[John Desmarais]

I have played in OSE games using Advanced classes and perhaps another rule or two (like additional spell acquisition for MUs and Elves) and been generally happy with what they've done. The classes, in particular, they've done a good job keeping balanced with the core seven.

This has been my experience as well. The OSE/AF material is well scaled to the core OSE rules, allowing you to use as much or as little as you want.

 

[Musing Mage]

I have played in OSE games using Advanced classes and perhaps another rule or two (like additional spell acquisition for MUs and Elves) and been generally happy with what they've done. The classes, in particular, they've done a good job keeping balanced with the core seven.

Certainly encouraging. Will decide soon enough once I get the books.

I am starting a brand new OSE game this Friday to add to my list of games. This group should be interesting - 2 brand new to RPGs, 2 old hat who favour B/X, plus a casual player who just loves the role playing aspect and doesn't know anything about editions, and his son who has only ever played 5th ed.

Will keep it to Basic Fantasy to start, but if it all works out I'll introduce advanced elements once I have time to peruse them.

 

[Mannahnin]

Certainly encouraging. Will decide soon enough once I get the books.

I am starting a brand new OSE game this Friday to add to my list of games. This group should be interesting - 2 brand new to RPGs, 2 old hat who favour B/X, plus a casual player who just loves the role playing aspect and doesn't know anything about editions, and his son who has only ever played 5th ed.

Will keep it to Basic Fantasy to start, but if it all works out I'll introduce advanced elements once I have time to peruse them.

Sounds great!

Personally one of the first things I normally include (as a house rule in a B/X game, too, even if I'm not running OSE) is allowing MUs and Elves to acquire spells from scrolls and enemy books. I think the spell acquisition sub-game is one of the really fun and thematic parts of playing an MU, in particular.

 

[Musing Mage]

Sounds great!

Personally one of the first things I normally include (as a house rule in a B/X game, too, even if I'm not running OSE) is allowing MUs and Elves to acquire spells from scrolls and enemy books. I think the spell acquisition sub-game is one of the really fun and thematic parts of playing an MU, in particular.

Yeah, have already informed my players it will be an option and jotted down a reasonable metric for it. Almost everyone has made a magic user of one of their stable of 3 characters, and at least 2 players are leaning to starting with the MU. Should be an interesting one.

Following the AD&D model as well, I'm giving starting MUs Read Magic as a default plus their one starting spell.

 

[thirdkingdom]

My houserule for magic-users is that magic-users don't have a minimum number of spells they know, but are rather able to memorize any spell they have access to and can study. To counteract that increased range, I've eliminated the Read Magic spell; spells can be found written in any language, and any spell the character can read, and is a high enough level to cast, can be memorized. This, I feel, encourages the collection of magical tomes, scrolls, and such, and at higher levels the magic-user will want to create a sanctum to contain their library.

 

[kenada]

Anyone using the Rules Cyclopedia versions of monsters instead of the advanced fantasy conversions?

I was looking at the RC’s turning table with an eye towards extending the one in OSE past 7–9 HD when I noticed that RC has monsters that OSE added in advanced fantasy. They are … quite different. We had an encounter with a banshee last session that would have gone very differently if I were using the RC version. I was also struck by how much closer the ghost of Sir Chyde (in Winter’s Daughter) is to the ghost in RC than it is to the converted one in OSE advanced fantasy.

 

[Mannahnin]

Interesting! No, I haven't done the comparison. I still haven't picked up a copy of the RC. Though perhaps I should compare the AF book vs Mentzer's monsters from the BECM Companion set, which would be the original source for the RC stuff, right?