Looking for the Old School: Tell my group what to play

[S'mon]

Yup - C&C clearly not for you.

I can see cases where it would definitely better just to say "surprise - 2 in 6; 1 in 6 if Ranger in party". I may start doing that in my current campaign. I already use the B/X 2d6 morale system for all my D&D-esque games.

I do like the SIEGE engine for most out of combat activities though; otherwise I'd just be rolling d20 roll-under-attribute, which also works ok especially for lower powered settings.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I do like the SIEGE engine for most out of combat activities though; otherwise I'd just be rolling d20 roll-under-attribute, which also works ok especially for lower powered settings.

I've moved away from the habit of thinking in terms of skill checks or ability checks, for the most part. Instead, I tend to rely on rulings. Sometimes it can come down to yes/no. Often, I'll just gauge the circumstances (including the capabilities/class/background of the PC) and come up with a percentage chance. This isn't terribly different from coming up with a modifier or a DC, it just cuts out all the overhead.

For example, when I was using the SIEGE engine, I might think "I want someone with above-average Dex to have a 75% chance of success." Then I'd back into a difficulty or target number. Now, I just eliminate the extra step. Also, I think that I'm quicker and more accurate when I gauge the circumstances and come up with a percentage -- I find it easy and natural to think in those terms. A formula or system might require a lot of modifiers and special cases to match what human judgment can do very quickly.

On the rare occasion that I do call for an ability check, I usually go for "roll Xd6 equal to or below the stat." A typical check would use 3d6, and tougher checks would use more six siders.

 

[Mythmere1]

Swords & Wizardry probably has the biggest jump from modern-type gaming of all the retro-clones, just because it goes all the way back to 0e. There's one version, Whitebox, for pure no-supplement 0e, and the Core Rules use some material from the supplements, most importantly the variable weapon damage and hit dice. I happen to prefer the core rules because I'm a house-ruler and there's more room in the numbers when using the variable hit dice and damage. Many people prefer the WhiteBox because the variable hit dice of Supplement I (represented by the S&W Core Rules) are the game's first instance of "power creep." S&W allows the choice and contains the numbers for using it with either ascending or descending AC.

The other big jump into a new flavor and gaming style would be to go to one of the Moldvay Basic approaches, which are Solomoriah's Basic Fantasy Roleplaying Game (BFRPG) or Dan Proctor's Labyrinth Lord. These are highly similar, and actually compatible with Swords & Wizardry as well. Labyrinth Lord is more faithful to the Moldvay Rules, BFRPG has some tweaks to improve it (ascending AC, for example).

If you're a true fan of wonky subsystems, OSRIC is the way to go. Swords & Wizardry, LL, and BFRPG are all based on a highly free-form, free-wheeling style of gaming. OSRIC, as a clone of 1e, provides much more wonky "crunch," and far more detail than the 0e and Basic clones. If you want old-style gaming with a bit more guidance, and if you like getting inspiration from the nature of the game-rules themselves, OSRIC is probably the choice for you.

Hopefully that helps identify what sorts of gaming preferences are best facilitated by the various systems. WhiteBox has a gritty, risky, human feel to it; Swords & Wizardry Core Rules are very freewheeling but with more familiar numbers - still 0e, but with more "stuff"; the 2 Basic clones are also freewheeling with a bit less of a sword & sorcery feel than S&W but with their own pulpy flavor; 1e/OSRIC is the game for wonky subsystems and more rules for the DM to rely on instead of really free-form rulings.

 

[S'mon]

If you're a true fan of wonky subsystems, OSRIC is the way to go. Swords & Wizardry, LL, and BFRPG are all based on a highly free-form, free-wheeling style of gaming. OSRIC, as a clone of 1e, provides much more wonky "crunch," and far more detail than the 0e and Basic clones. If you want old-style gaming with a bit more guidance, and if you like getting inspiration from the nature of the game-rules themselves, OSRIC is probably the choice for you.

Hopefully that helps identify what sorts of gaming preferences are best facilitated by the various systems. WhiteBox has a gritty, risky, human feel to it; Swords & Wizardry Core Rules are very freewheeling but with more familiar numbers - still 0e, but with more "stuff"; the 2 Basic clones are also freewheeling with a bit less of a sword & sorcery feel than S&W but with their own pulpy flavor; 1e/OSRIC is the game for wonky subsystems and more rules for the DM to rely on instead of really free-form rulings.

Good analysis from mythmere as usual.


I'm about to start a Wilderlands online chat game and I think Labyrinth Lord rules will work well for that very "freewheeling with a bit less of a sword & sorcery feel... ...but with their own pulpy flavor" setting

Likewise I'm running a very Gygaxian-flavoured Greyhawk chat game and
C&C* gives me "old-style gaming with a bit more guidance, and... ...inspiration from the nature of the game-rules themselves" - while being less wonky than OSRIC/1e, which would also give the same flavour.

*Inspired by my discussion with Philotomy here I have banned Sound Burst and started using the 1e Surprise system though