The Case for OSRIC

The "more" game isn't always the "better" game.

There is a case for sticking with OSRIC and not moving to a "stuff" game like Adventures Dark & Deep.

Over the years, I find "alt classes" - like the bard and others- to weaken a party and dramatically increase the challenge. Some may like that, but the more specialized classes you have, the more players want to explore them, and the balance of the game's core classes gets lots in the shuffle.

It is like someone wanting to be a barbarian but not realizing that they will be taking a lot of damage due to their lack of armor, and then the party's healer will rush to keep up. The balance, power use, healing, and everything else around a party that would be fine with an armored fighter is suddenly thrown out of whack with a barbarian.

The same goes for specialty mages whose damage output does not match a pure magic user. All of a sudden, the specific situation the mage excels in isn't combat, and that damage potential drops, making encounters harder on the party. The same goes for thieves versus bards. In some games, the designers do a good job and ensure the damage is there, but the original first-edition rules got it right with the base classes.

It is the same for specialty healers or special-function divine classes that cannot heal as well as healers. The more specialized the class, the more niche the role, and the less the character can contribute to the party - thus altering the game's balance.

Sometimes, "keeping it simple" makes the game easier for everyone and reduces the workload on new players who ask, " What does that class do?" Shadowdark has only four classes in the book, and the game plays great. Keeping it simple works, and it makes the game better.

If you want to be a bard, simply say your cleric, fighter, thief, or magic user has a musical background as a performer. If this ability may help or be used, roll for it. If you give everyone a free background profession, someone could pick blacksmith, another survivalist, etc. You will get most of the fun and utility of a "skill system" without needing one in your game.

Does someone want a new skill? Sure, 6 months to a year of training in your off-adventure time, and it is yours. That is how it is done in real life; you spend time, apprentice, and attend school. It may cost tuition or money to pay for an apprentice and materials. All the skills "specialist henchmen" have can be taught to you, and there is your "skill list."

Or you could give a free "skill level" like this at every character level, either in a new skill or a +1 in an existing one. This is a first-edition game, mod at will.

You can have "role specialization" within the existing classes just by "saying it is so." Do bards always need "magic songs?" No. A fighter with a bard background sings in battle, and those die rolls during combat trying to weave songs for special effect will be "the player describes what they want to happen" and "the referee rules on it, and may call for a roll or not."

I sing, so the whole party gets a +1 hit and damage!

Okay, you do. No roll needed. No spell is required. You just do.

I sing to calm the owlbear! Okay, roll for that since there is a chance of failing and worsening the situation.

By default, you should not be "rolling for everything" in an old-school game, especially if you have the skill or equipment. It is punitive and player-punishing and minimizes the choices and sacrifices players make. Did you buy a rope and grappling hook, give up part of your backpack to haul it through the dungeon, and wait for your chance to use it?

Why did the referee make you roll to climb when you used it?

You could have climbed that wall without a rope and grappling hook - with a roll.

No roll is needed; you climb the wall because you made a choice, suffered with carrying it around, and used it at an appropriate time. I swear, these bad game designers came around and "skill rolled" every action, no matter the choice or situation, which hurt roleplaying.

No, it is not a +8 because you have excellent equipment. It is "No, you do not need to roll." Think about watching a Conan movie where this guy hauls around a rope and grappling hook for the whole film, and then reaches the moment he can finally use it! He fails his climbing roll, falls off, and dies. I am not watching a Conan film; I am watching a Mel Brooks comedy movie. That is horrible refereeing.

The same thing applies to backgrounds; many actions with them will be automatic. Only roll when the outcome cannot be reasonably assumed or a reasonable chance of failure exists.

That bard background is just as valuable as all others since parties need to survive in the wilderness, repair armor, smith metal, perform diplomacy, know lore, apply non-divine medicine, and all the other skills parties need.

All your fancy "game designer" bard powers are wrapped up in a background choice within the classic first-edition framework, and no extra rules are needed. Any class can be a bard, fighter, thief, magic user, cleric, or paladin.