Is OSRIC the new in print "defacto" D&D?

[Ourph]

I think the "de facto" D&D for the forseeable future will almost certainly be the "in facto" D&D, which at the moment is 4e.

 

[Chainsaw]

I think the "de facto" D&D for the forseeable future will almost certainly be the "in facto" D&D, which at the moment is 4e.

Hahah, so true.

 

[jdrakeh]

Short answer: No.

Long answer: I can't foresee any of the clones (including C&C & Pathfinder) actually overtaking the current iteration of D&D in popularity. D&D has the brand-name, has a giant company to handle distribution and development (something, bless their souls, none of those companies begin to match) and there is a significant population of the game that left 1e long ago and (barring a few rediscovereries) have no desire to go back. That's not to say these games aren't good, or have an audience, but I don't forsee OSRIC becoming "delfacto" anything except a nice SRD-like version of AD&D 1e that people will use with their old school games.

I think that pretty much nails it.

 

[Keefe the Thief]

When I woke this morning I had a thought, I (and I think most people from my generation) always considered 1E AD&D the "base game" on which everything else was built (the defacto D&D) and measured. Yes, OD&D existed, but it was pretty loose, not complete enough. 1E nailed Gygax's vision, OD&D not really. 3E and 4E are too far removed to hold the defacto title. LL and S&W are likewise too loose and too unique (with strong brands). As I see it, OSRIC is going to be the in print standard by which all other versions of D&D (and clones, such as S&W, LL and C&C will be measured (the out of print will always be 1E of course). OSRIC's growth will undoubtedly be increasing in the future, but I wonder if anyone will notice. Off to work, I'll post more tonight.

The constant need to compare and measure this edition to that is one of the biggest problems D&D fandom has. I´m glad that its much diminished in other RPGs i play, and would not shed a tear if it went away.

 

[kitsune9]

It seems unlikely. But I suppose anything is possible.

In my opinion, AD&D was (and is) not the "base game" (etc.) you referred to. That would have to be OD&D, of course. Well, to be fair, IMO.

I agree. I don't think OSRIC has become that defacto title yet simply because of recognition. As an anecdotal example, if I were to go to my players on my Saturday game and say, "AD&D 1e" or "OD&D", they will say, "What about it? You want to play a game or two for old times sake?". If I were to say, "OSRIC", they will say, "What's that?"

When non-EN Worlders and non-D&D gamers understand and recognize OSRIC for what it is, then I think it's a step closer.

But things can change and it could happen.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Is 1e D&D? Yes. Is OSRIC D&D? Yes (not by brand of course). Is 1e somehow more D&D than 2e, 3e, or 4e? No. Not by any standards other than personal, individual ones.

You know, when I read this my thought was that if this is true regarding 1E and OSRIC then it is equally true regarding 4E - and that really doesn't say good things for WotC who must cringe with every post that disses 4E or promotes any other version.

 

[smug]

To me, given my gaming personal history, yeah, 1e is "D&D" and OSRIC (which I have downloaded) is the current version.

The only other justification I would apply, that's not rooted in my own personal experiences, is that I guess that 1e was played by the most people and was the version of the game when Dungeons and Dragons went mass-market and really got into the public consciousness (if only because it makes us into suicidal Satanists. Oh, and the horrendous cartoon).

 

[JeffB]

Gary himself had pretty much abandoned AD&D in his latter days and often referred to the original brown books (sans supplements) as his fave version and all he would run.

For my own tastes and having started with them and then just mishmashing AD&D onto it, I'd say the LBBs with supplements is the true base. AD&D is basically all the LBBs with added complication and codification (needless, IMO). Even into 1982 I still did the same thing- pulling bits from AD&D and using the original rules (at that time MoldvayCookMarsh B/X) as the base. While AD&D was a great read, I think the original game (in either incarnation) is D&D at it's purest essence, so to speak.

 

[Particle_Man]

In my FLGS there are Castles and Crusades books, 1st ed AD&D books, and 2nd ed AD&D books. It carries a lot of indie stuff too. But 4e and 3e dominate the shelf space for the D&D lines.

There are some adventures that are C&C based. I don't see any OSRIC stuff there. I certainly didn't see the OSRIC ruleset there.

I think that the trouble is that many people have never heard of OSRIC, and those that have, have done so via internet, where they can get a free pdf of it. So the market for buying it is those that want a dead tree version of it, specifically. But 2nd hand 1st ed. books will usually be cheaper, dead tree to dead tree wise.

 

[kenmarable]

It's deep questions like this that make me miss diaglo even more.