OSR Taking the OSE Initiate Feat

[Argyle King]

After some discussion on the General forum (where DCC was being compared to OSE,) I decided to pick up a few materials. I felt that increasing my knowledge of the product -by actually looking at it and trying to understand it- would allow me to have a more educated opinion, rather than relying on a mix of second-hand knowledge from YouTube and whatever sunk-cost emotions the primal part of my brain may feel toward products I already own. So, I picked up the Classic Game Set.

To be completely honest, I did not expect to like the product. The previous discussion over on the General forum mostly centered around the layout of a few adventures, and I did not particularly care for the layout. To my surprise, I found that the layout (used in the set's booklets) was something that I liked. There is still a lot to digest, but I feel confident that, even from just a brief perusal of the material, that I could play the game and mostly know what I was doing. (I would need a little bit of help getting accustomed to Thac0 and different save categories that modern D&D has.)

But I do have questions:

• How compatible is OSE with OSRIC? While I have not (yet) played OSRIC, I did back the upcoming newer version. From a lot of what I have read online, both games share the same roots, so are said to be mostly compatible with minor adjustments. However, I am new to OSR games as whole, so I am still figuring things out.
• The quick rule of thumb is have see online is that DCC levels equal roughly 2 OSR levels. If you have done conversions to or from DCC, have you found that to be accurate?
• Does a critical hit on an attack roll do anything extra in OSE?

 

[amethal]

• How compatible is OSE with OSRIC? While I have not (yet) played OSRIC, I did back the upcoming newer version. From a lot of what I have read online, both games share the same roots, so are said to be mostly compatible with minor adjustments. However, I am new to OSR games as whole, so I am still figuring things out.

The history of D&D editions is quite complicated. I don't really know where to start with this, because I'm not sure what you know already. Apologies if I'm telling you stuff you already know.

OSE is based on the original D&D game, more specifically the "Moldvay" Basic and Expert sets, usually referred to as the B/X version. That was a bit before my time - I started on the next version, the "Mentzer" Version which is referred to as the BECMI version.

OSRIC is based on the 1st Edition of the Advanced Dungeons and Dragons game. TSR supported both product lines at the same time - the Advanced game did not replace the original game, and both games continued to evolve independently.

As I think was fairly common at the time, I started with D&D (in my case, BECMI) then moved on to AD&D. AD&D was way more complicated, but it was usual to ignore rules you didn't like (I didn't know anybody who used the weapon vs armour modifiers, or the weapon speed rules) and also to not realise where AD&D had changed some rules - for instance, I'm pretty sure we carried on using D&D initiative as we hadn't noticed it was done a bit differently in AD&D.

It was also very common for each DM to have their own house rules, and for players to be a bit vague as to what were the actual rules of the game as opposed to the way the DM liked to run things. In our case we hardly ever used the monster reaction rolls - we were children, we wanted to fight monsters, not negotiate with them - which is not the way you were supposed to play the game.

So whilst there are differences between the two games you can easily mix and match the rules (deliberately, or accidentally) and there should be no problem running adventures written for one system using the other. However, it might be easier just to pick the system you prefer and stick with it. Otherwise you might get as confused as we did, back in the day.

 

[Simon Miles]

How compatible is OSE with OSRIC?

Completely, as far as we have experienced as long as you use OSE Advanced - we produce products for both systems (as per the logos on the front of our products) and the only tweak we have to make is on AC to allow for the AAC that OSE Advanced uses and the old fashioned AC used in OSRIC. There might be some other differences in the deep-down nitty-gritty but these have not affected our gaming or publications at all.
Lastest pub cover included for illustration - available for Pay what you want (for free if you like, we're good with

that!) on www.dunrominuniversitypress.co.uk

 

[Mannahnin]

The history of D&D editions is quite complicated. I don't really know where to start with this, because I'm not sure what you know already. Apologies if I'm telling you stuff you already know.

OSE is based on the original D&D game, more specifically the "Moldvay" Basic and Expert sets, usually referred to as the B/X version. That was a bit before my time - I started on the next version, the "Mentzer" Version which is referred to as the BECMI version.

OSRIC is based on the 1st Edition of the Advanced Dungeons and Dragons game. TSR supported both product lines at the same time - the Advanced game did not replace the original game, and both games continued to evolve independently.

As I think was fairly common at the time, I started with D&D (in my case, BECMI) then moved on to AD&D. AD&D was way more complicated, but it was usual to ignore rules you didn't like (I didn't know anybody who used the weapon vs armour modifiers, or the weapon speed rules) and also to not realise where AD&D had changed some rules - for instance, I'm pretty sure we carried on using D&D initiative as we hadn't noticed it was done a bit differently in AD&D.

It was also very common for each DM to have their own house rules, and for players to be a bit vague as to what were the actual rules of the game as opposed to the way the DM liked to run things. In our case we hardly ever used the monster reaction rolls - we were children, we wanted to fight monsters, not negotiate with them - which is not the way you were supposed to play the game.

So whilst there are differences between the two games you can easily mix and match the rules (deliberately, or accidentally) and there should be no problem running adventures written for one system using the other. However, it might be easier just to pick the system you prefer and stick with it. Otherwise you might get as confused as we did, back in the day.

Good post! Although slight clarification- both B/X D&D (released in 1981) and AD&D 1st Edition (released in 1977-1979) derive from Original D&D (released 1974). (Like you I started with 1983-1985 BECMI in 1985 and didn't learn this history until years later).

OD&D accumulated additional rules and supplements from 1975-1977 until it was nearly as complex as AD&D; AD&D was introduced both to clean up/consolidate all the supplements and clarifications from OD&D and expand on those to make it a "more complete" game suitable for tournaments, and as a business maneuver to claim to be a different game from D&D so TSR could just put Gary's name on it and not pay royalties to Dave Arneson on it.

1981 B/X is simplified (introducing Race as Class for example) in many ways, to serve the dual purposes of being a good introductory set for newbies since the game exploded into national popular culture in late 1979 following the James Dallas Egbert III disappearance, and to differentiate it from AD&D to help support TSR's legal argument that they should be allowed to cut Arneson off from royalties on AD&D and just pay them to him on D&D.

 

[Mannahnin]

But I do have questions:

• How compatible is OSE with OSRIC? While I have not (yet) played OSRIC, I did back the upcoming newer version. From a lot of what I have read online, both games share the same roots, so are said to be mostly compatible with minor adjustments. However, I am new to OSR games as whole, so I am still figuring things out.
• The quick rule of thumb is have see online is that DCC levels equal roughly 2 OSR levels. If you have done conversions to or from DCC, have you found that to be accurate?
• Does a critical hit on an attack roll do anything extra in OSE?

1. OSE is a restatement, reorganization and clarification of 1981 Basic/Expert D&D while OSRIC is a restatement, reorganization and clarification of 1977-1979 AD&D 1st edition. These are somewhat different games, with AD&D having separate race & class, more complex and stingy ability score charts, more generous hit points and spells, and lots of additional rules like psionics, grappling and two other forms of unarmed combat, more monsters, spells, magic items, classes, weapons, armor, additional rules for things like attack bonuses and penalties for different weapons vs armor types, and more complex initiative rules.

1a. That being said, because the core mechanics (concepts like armor class, HD to attack matrices, saving throws) are so similar between the games, the degree of compatibility remains high. To increase OSE's usability with classic AD&D and modern OSRIC adventures even more, OSE has an Advanced Adventures variant, which implements practically all the options from AD&D (separate race and class, additional classes, monsters, magic items, etc.) in OSE. So this means if you're running an old AD&D module with OSE Advanced, you don't have to worry about running into a monster, spell, class or magic item which wasn't present in B/X and needing to substitute or make up rules. OSE Advanced has you covered.

2. DCC to Old School D&D conversion. I have not done the conversion work, but have run and played quite a lot of old school D&D and read DCC closely. That conversion rate does seem to me like a good rule of thumb given the extra powers and abilities DCC characters have.

3. There are no critical hits in the OSE rules. There were none in either B/X D&D or in 1st edition AD&D; Gary Gygax famously thought they were a terrible idea and said so in the AD&D DMG. AD&D didn't introduce them as an optional rule until 2nd edition in 1989, four years after he left the company. That being said, they've always been a popular house rule, going back to the 70s, so modern tables do sometimes incorporate them.

 

[Argyle King]

The history of D&D editions is quite complicated. I don't really know where to start with this, because I'm not sure what you know already. Apologies if I'm telling you stuff you already know.

OSE is based on the original D&D game, more specifically the "Moldvay" Basic and Expert sets, usually referred to as the B/X version. That was a bit before my time - I started on the next version, the "Mentzer" Version which is referred to as the BECMI version.

OSRIC is based on the 1st Edition of the Advanced Dungeons and Dragons game. TSR supported both product lines at the same time - the Advanced game did not replace the original game, and both games continued to evolve independently.

As I think was fairly common at the time, I started with D&D (in my case, BECMI) then moved on to AD&D. AD&D was way more complicated, but it was usual to ignore rules you didn't like (I didn't know anybody who used the weapon vs armour modifiers, or the weapon speed rules) and also to not realise where AD&D had changed some rules - for instance, I'm pretty sure we carried on using D&D initiative as we hadn't noticed it was done a bit differently in AD&D.

It was also very common for each DM to have their own house rules, and for players to be a bit vague as to what were the actual rules of the game as opposed to the way the DM liked to run things. In our case we hardly ever used the monster reaction rolls - we were children, we wanted to fight monsters, not negotiate with them - which is not the way you were supposed to play the game.

So whilst there are differences between the two games you can easily mix and match the rules (deliberately, or accidentally) and there should be no problem running adventures written for one system using the other. However, it might be easier just to pick the system you prefer and stick with it. Otherwise you might get as confused as we did, back in the day.

I know some of that from reading, but I appreciate the extra depth and experienced opinion that comes from conversation, so thank you. I did not fully understand the BX-BECMI divide.

My first time playing D&D was the beginning of D&D 3.5. (I had some 3.0 books but never actually got to use them before 3.5 came out). Later, I played both 4E and 5E. I've been playing Dungeon Crawl Classics for around a year. I do own a lot of older D&D material and have dabbled here and there, but mostly I picked up monster books and adventures to convert to other things.

Outside of D&D, I play a lot of GURPS. A big chunk of my early GURPS 4th Edition experience was as a player in a Greyhawk game for which the GM used GURPS. We played through a lot of the classic adventures. In particular, the A-series beginning with Slave Pits of the Undercity.

Edit: I backed the new edition of OSRIC earlier in the year. As I've started to play more games in the OSR family, I've been more open to trying things.

I have a lot of interest in running older adventures and monster books. Even though I started with "modern" D&D, I much prefer the mentality and general approach to the genre that I feel from interacting with pre-WotC D&D.

Eventually, I would like to try running Ghost Tower of Inverness in either DCC or one of the other OSR (maybe OSE) games.

 

[Mannahnin]

I know some of that from reading, but I appreciate the extra depth and experienced opinion that comes from conversation, so thank you. I did not fully understand the BX-BECMI divide.

When TSR released B/X in 1981 they planned to expand it with a third Companion book/boxed set in the future, and the Expert set explicitly talks about this. It tells you that the Fighter, Magic-User, Cleric and Thief classes can advance up to 36th level (although the Expert set details only up to 14th), and gives some general guidelines on page X8 for how much XP levels past 14th will take to gain, and how attack and HP progression will work, but it only describes new abilities in limited detail, telling the reader that it's up to the DM whether to make up new high level abilities or wait for the Companion set to be released with all the details for levels 15-36.

In practice, TSR decided instead to re-launch the Dungeons & Dragons line in 1983 with a new editor/writer (Frank Mentzer for the entire line, instead of Tom Moldvay for the 1981 Basic and David "Zeb" Cook and Steve Marsh for 1981 Expert) and several other changes:

1. All-new art from Larry Elmore, providing a unified polished, professional looking consistent vibe throughout instead of B/X's IMO great but arguably more amateurish and weird mix of Erol Otus, Jeff Dee, Wade Hampton, Dave "Diesel" LaForce, Jim Roslof, and Bill Willingham.
2. Major reorganization of the Basic set into two books, the Players Manual and Dungeon Master's Rulebook, with the Players Manual containing two solo tutorial scenarios to introduce brand new players to the rules concepts in a more dedicated and hand-holding manner.
3. Some tiny general tweaks to the rules from the B/X books (but it's 98 or 99% the same rules).
4. Splitting levels 15-36 across TWO boxed sets, Companion (1984) and Master (1985), and including more new rules, for domain management, mass combat, and unarmed combat, options for higher level characters to become Druids, Knights, Paladins, or Avengers, as well as new weapons, in the Companion set, and new stuff like weapon mastery in the Master set.
5. A brand-new Immortals set for characters to become divine beings after 36th level and have world-spanning and interdimensional adventures using some very different new rules that abandon a lot of the core mechanics of D&D.

The BECMI game also got further expansions via the Gazetteer series of 15 supplements centered on different regions of the Mystara (FKA The Known World) setting and the Hollow World campaign set, including elements like new race and class options, and a skill system. BECMI also got additional optional content in Dragon Magazine, including via the Voyage of the Princess Ark series of articles about a flying ship from the Empire of Alphatia exploring the world and giving even more detail (and occasionally new rules for) stuff in it.

As a tangent, in 1991 TSR compiled the rules from BECM (leaving out Immortals) into the Dungeons & Dragons Rules Cyclopedia, an all-in-one book covering levels 1-36, and incorporating the skill system from the gazetteers, as well as some additional optional rules (like D&D's first Death Save rule for 0HP).

 

[Argyle King]

1a. That being said, because the core mechanics (concepts like armor class, HD to attack matrices, saving throws) are so similar between the games, the degree of compatibility remains high. To increase OSE's usability with classic AD&D and modern OSRIC adventures even more, OSE has an Advanced Adventures variant, which implements practically all the options from AD&D (separate race and class, additional classes, monsters, magic items, etc.) in OSE. So this means if you're running an old AD&D module with OSE Advanced, you don't have to worry about running into a monster, spell, class or magic item which wasn't present in B/X and needing to substitute or make up rules. OSE Advanced has you covered.

At some point, I will likely pick up the Advanced OSE set, as it sounds as though I will still get a lot of use out of that even with other things that I play.

I prefer the smaller booklet format, so I hope that's still an option for Advanced. I vaguely recall seeing a comment that it may not be for 2026.

I understand consolidating Basic and Advanced because it honestly was a little confusing to figure out what I needed to buy, but I find that I much prefer the boxrd format with the smaller booklets.

2. DCC to Old School D&D conversion. I have not done the conversion work, but have run and played quite a lot of old school D&D and read DCC closely. That conversion rate does seem to me like a good rule of thumb given the extra powers and abilities DCC characters have.

I'm mainly looking at trying to convert monsters. DCC offers quite a bit already, but I have a lot of creature and monster books that cover specific niches in more detail.

Also, for trying to guess at which old D&D adventures are best suited for a particular level of DCC characters, it's nice to know. I neither expect nor necessarily want perfect "balance," but there's still value in having some general idea about what the characters can reasonably handle.

3. There are no critical hits in the OSE rules. There were none in either B/X D&D or in 1st edition AD&D; Gary Gygax famously thought they were a terrible idea and said so in the AD&D DMG. AD&D didn't introduce them as an optional rule until 2nd edition in 1989, four years after he left the company. That being said, they've always been a popular house rule, going back to the 70s, so modern tables do sometimes incorporate them.

I'm less interested in extra damage (in the way that modern damage does it) than I am in extra effects. I could try to incorporate either the DCC tables or something from one of the other games I play. Something to spice up rolling a 20 for some of the players that I have.

Completely, as far as we have experienced as long as you use OSE Advanced - we produce products for both systems (as per the logos on the front of our products) and the only tweak we have to make is on AC to allow for the AAC that OSE Advanced uses and the old fashioned AC used in OSRIC. There might be some other differences in the deep-down nitty-gritty but these have not affected our gaming or publications at all.
Lastest pub cover included for illustration - available for Pay what you want (for free if you like, we're good withView attachment 427362 that!) on www.dunrominuniversitypress.co.uk

I will take a look at those. Thank you.

On the weekends, there's a guy at one of the flea markets near me who has a bunch of old D&D stuff for sale. Honestly, most of it is in rough shape (so wouldn't be worth much of anything got collectors,) but it's still okay enough to be readable and usable. Honestly, I kinda like that they're a little beat up because that makes me feel less guilty if I need to highlight something or make a note in a margin.

Most recently, I bought N1 - Against the Cult of the Reptile God.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

We used AD&D and B/X material interchangeably back in the day, even if we told ourselves we were playing AD&D. I don't think there's any real issues in using both OSE and OSRIC together, although you'll probably want to have your players using one system or the other for building their characters.

But monsters, adventures, treasure, etc., should work seamlessly. This is also generally true for most of the OSR, except for NSR titles like Cairn that have the vibes but are mechanically pretty different. But most of the time, you can pick up whatever adventures, campaign settings and bestiaries you want and run them with almost any OSR system you want without real issue.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Eventually, I would like to try running Ghost Tower of Inverness in either DCC or one of the other OSR (maybe OSE) games.

I2 will run like butter in either OSRIC or OSE Advanced, both of which closely mirror AD&D. (It'll also run great in nearly every OSR game, of course.)