OSRIC: Still Holding Strong

I do not regret my decision to upgrade to OSRIC. I still love OSE and my books, and I'm getting the new edition and the Demonic Grimoire soon. I'm looking forward to those books, and OSE is still a beautifully compact, portable game. In that feeling of "the tiny capturing the infinite," OSE still can't be beaten.

But OSRIC is wonderful, and one of its best features is how it limits character options. OSE has fallen to the modern design theory of "more is better," and we have all sorts of ancestries to choose from. As a result, the default world has too many ancestries, and each one means less. No orcs, no goblins, no ogres, no fox people, and no distractions. Humans alone have enough diversity; just look at our world if you want inspiration. You could add diversity to the other ancestries, too, but don't give any of them mechanical benefits. Giving every diverse ancestry option a special trinket is silly, reductive, pointless, and overdesigned.

Plus, I want my ancestries to mean something. Be an elf or a dwarf. Pick a diverse background for them. Celebrate that ancestry. It is rich, diverse, and an amazing culture to explore.

If people want special ancestries, talk to me as the GM. This isn't a rejection of all of them, and I know people will want to play as dark elves, but that option exists in 1E material, so talk to me. The world, as it is defined, will be what is in these books.

I can always pull in Unearthed Arcana for the dark elves, or any other 1E-compatible resource. Converting from OSE is another option, but you will need to set allowed classes and level limits (OSE has these; use them as a base, get the table's agreement, compare similar level limits, and adjust). You can pull in any OSE ancestry like this, so you still have choices; the default set just resets to the original 1E game's set.

I don't want the modern World of Warcraft style world, where 1001 funny-shaped player avatars run around, and the company keeps adding new ones while watering down and ignoring what they already have. It gets to a point where new MMO character options are introduced just to pump up quarterly numbers; the new option never gets proper respect or treatment in lore, and next quarter a new one comes out, the company will ignore it and shove the old one on a shelf like a toy that never gets played with. We get the same "sales mentality" in tabletop gaming, and it ruins our worlds.

Humans, elves, dwarves, and the core ancestries are amazingly diverse. There's already more than enough here. With limited choices, my stories and worlds are much better. I have focus again. My history and world-building are clearer.

But if I am pulling in OSE ancestries, why not just play OSE? I enjoy OSRIC's limited options better, and I always have my OSE books should I want something special or different. OSRIC's turn structure is superior, and phased casting gives casters real choice and balance. The fighters mean something here, especially with specialization. Rogues have real meaning with their backstabs. I have to mod and house-rule the game far less to enjoy it.

If I want a tiefling or dark elf, they are always there. But they are limited, special choices, which makes them feel special and unique. The basic books are all I want or need, and there is plenty of other 1E material out there to last me a lifetime.

OSRIC. vs. BX: The Fighter

It all starts with the fighter.

If there is one reason to play OSRIC over OSE, it's the party's core: the fighter. Without a strong fighter, the entire dungeon game falls apart, and we see this today in book after book of power-game caster powers, desperate to distract players and keep the "next OP thing" on digital store shelves.

Without a strong fighter, the whole game falls apart.

And in BX, especially OSE, the fighter comes off as just a good attack, a pile of hit points, and the best armor. I have to pull in zines to give the fighter any viability. It is not enough. Sure, in a basic game, the class is fine, but it doesn't scale in power and capability as well as OSRIC. The OSE fighter starts as one thing, and never really changes or feels powerful.

OSRIC makes a very good fighter, and this one competes with Swords & Wizardry on timing alone. Where S&W focuses on damage, OSRIC focuses on combat timing and structure, making the fighter the "lord and master" of the battle.

Weapon specialization for that first-turn, first-phase attack makes the fighter the first one to act. Every other turn, they go through phases 1 and 10 twice, and as they level, it gets better and better. And they get this from level one. Heroic assault at level 2 is the "slay the room" power, which OSE is only just adding. Might blow comes into play occasionally, but it simulates the overpowering effect of higher-level fighters outmatching some foes.

Multiple attacks and initiative-phase buffs make the fighter highly desirable to play. They have not only the best defense, but also an offense that can shape the fight.

Every other class sits downstream of the fighter. You can't even begin to understand or balance thieves, magic-users, clerics, or hybrid classes unless your fighter is rock-solid and desirable to play. If you can't get the basic core martial class right, you aren't playing D&D or a dungeon game. It is superheroes with funny shapes and accents, I guess, and the designers at Wizards are falling over each other trying to give every caster Fireball and Wall of Force. They really don't know what they are doing.

OSRIC sticks with 1E and gets it right. I haven't felt this positive about fighters since D&D 4E, which had some powerful fighters and martial classes, but was saddled with terrible, card-based play. OSRIC builds fighters into the timing and structure of the combat turn, and it needs few special rules beyond this simple design. I don't need a dozen pages of subclass rules, new martial feats, or any other modern designer dongle or rules hack.

What gets me here is how deceptively simple this is, yet it works. And OSE's fighter doesn't go all the way; it sits on a too-simple structure, meant more for rules-hacking and modding. This was Gygax's criticism of BX: the entire game felt too nebulous and undefined for organized play, and too "whatever the table felt it was."

I love BX.

But Gygax was right. A little structure solves many of the fighter's problems in BX and sets up the rest of the game's classes for success.

OSRIC vs. BX

What am I seeing that most of OSR YouTube is missing? Why am I so hyped about OSRIC? How does 1E fix most of BX's problems? Why is 1E superior to BX?

Timing.

In BX (going by OSE Classic), here is the turn order:

Combat Sequence Per Round (BX/OSE)

1. Declare spells and melee movement
2. Initiative: Each side rolls 1d6.
3. Winning side acts:
1. Monster morale
2. Movement
3. Missile attacks
4. Spell casting
5. Melee attacks
4. The other side acts in initiative order.

They follow a strict turn order to compensate for the lack of OSRIC turn timing. Spells must be announced at the start of the turn, so if you lose initiative, the spell can be disrupted if the caster is successfully attacked or fails a saving throw.

Note where missile attacks land in this turn order; this will come up.

If you aren't using this turn order in BX and are playing "fast and loose," you are missing the point and making casters too powerful. The entire BX turn order is a patch that tries to simulate 1E's elegant combat turn, but it breaks or forces attacker classes into a set order, eliminating any granular, meaningful detail in combat.

BX combat is "one size fits all."

Let's hit OSRIC, and I am NOT going to AD&D, since AD&D's initiative order is confusing because you are "rolling for the other side." OSRIC cleans this up and keeps the same core idea. In OSRIC, you roll for the phase when your side starts.

The order of events in OSRIC is as follows:

1. Determine Surprise (d6) and encounter distance.
2. Declare Spells and General Actions.
3. Determine Initiative (d6 and you go in the segment number you rolled, so a low roll goes earlier and is better). Missile attack bonuses may let individuals make ranged attacks before the main group attacks. Also, higher-level fighter-types may attack in specific segments with their Melee Attack Combinations instead of the rest of the group.
4. The party with initiative acts first (casting spells, attacking, etc.), and results take effect (except spells, which have casting times before they take effect). Note: Some actions may let the other side “interrupt” with an action, such as a fleeing attack or attacking charging opponents with spears set against a charge.
5. The party that lost initiative acts, and results take effect (except spells, which take effect when casting time ends).
6. The round is complete; declare spells and general actions for the next round if the battle has not been resolved (go back to step 2).

Seems very similar, right? I can't see the difference, and I did not at first, either. It is "just initiative," but lower is better here? Both sides go on their own roll, so how is that any different than side-based initiative in BX? So there are "10 phases" in a combat turn, so what?

Three things change that number:

1. Casters start casting the spell in their initiative phase and end when they complete the spell's casting time in segments.
2. High DEX missile weapon users can "jump ahead" and lower their phase by the DEX chart modifier.
3. Weapon specialization locks multiattack turns to phases 1 and 10 for those weapons.

There is a fourth thing for what OSE calls "slow" weapons, forcing them to always lose initiative, which is a hack and overly punishing. In OSRIC, weapon speed only breaks ties for combatants in the same phase, and the overly punishing BX rule for slow two-handed melee and missile weapons always losing initiative is gone.

The caster starts the spell in their phase and finishes "casting time" phases later, giving anyone in between a chance to attack them and disrupt the spell. This is the missing caster balance we have been looking for in every edition of D&D Wizards has put out. Are you a fast-attack specialist, or a high-DEX archer? Chances are you will be the one taking shots at enemy mages and ruining their spellcasting. And it is such a simple timing rule! Modern game designers have to think their way around the barn to get what Gygax gave us in 1E, and invent dozens of pages of subclass abilities and combat rules just to capture what a simple timing system built into combat does in 1E.

BX is too simple, and slow spells aren't any different from fast ones. What combat spell you pick matters here. Are you using a fast-cast combat spell (Burning Hands, fast, happens in the same segment), or winding up a massive, slow-casting fireball (3-segment cast time)? This is the baseball "bunt" versus "grand slam" choice casters need to make in combat. Do I cast something in the same phase, or wind up and hit them with a big spell later, risking losing it?

What? Betting theory in casting? Take a big risk for a big effect?

Quick, somebody start a crowdfunding campaign to write and sell a new game with these revolutionary rules! The same ones we had in 1980! Somebody make "Advanced Combat Casting" for 5E and sell these rules there, too!

BX spells don't have this built in, and none of them have segmented casting time. This is where 1E clearly beats the too-simple BX. The second part of caster balance is risk-reward, which BX and 5E both simplify out of the game, leaving us with overpowered casters again. They keep spell disruption, but entirely miss the point of the gambling choice casters must make.

It gets better. High-DEX missile weapon users jump ahead and can attack ahead of the party. If you know classic Tunnels and Trolls, this is the pre-combat "missile weapons phase" in that game, where missile weapon fire can happen before party action. The party may lose initiative, but the party's missile-weapon users can still go before the monsters. You can also hold your phase and wait for a monster to start casting, and target them. All this in a simple turn-order rule that other games ignore.

You don't get that in BX or 5E.

It gets even better, as if I need to pile on. The optional weapon specialization rules give you a 3/2 attack rate at levels 1-6 for two proficiency picks. The double-attack turns are the odd ones out, meaning on turn one of every combat, your specialized weapon attacks in phase 1 and phase 10. So, my fighter who picks weapon specialization for their longsword acts in phase 1 at the start of every combat, and they get an extra attack at the end of the turn to clean up. You get two attacks at the start of battle, and you always win initiative with that specialized weapon.

It is like getting a free action surge every other turn at level one. BX needs house rules and zines to spice up the fighter. The 1E fighter is plenty spicy.

5E writes dozens of pages of rules to address this and invents an overcomplicated, slow action economy system. They stack dozens of pages of subclass options to give me what 1E builds into the combat turn. Players flip through their character sheets while my 1E fighter knows exactly what they are doing this turn. 

Going first. Killing things. And mopping up.

And all this for only a moderate increase in turn-order and timing complexity. This is easier than 5E's action economy and overdesigned collection of special action types. Gary Gygax was a genius-level game designer, and today's designers often fumble in the dark trying to simulate this elegance and powerful simplicity. OSRIC just boils it down and makes it very clear what is going on, even to new players.

And since the spell lists have phase timing, it all works together beautifully. BX spells do not have this.

You may prefer BX's simplified combat; there are times when I couldn't care less about phase timing. But never assume "1E is BX with a bigger book and more rules" - it isn't. 1E refactors the BX system by adding a critical timing layer to combat and rebuilding D&D around the phased-combat system to better balance casters and buff martial characters. You don't need to "add spells" to balance martial classes, 5E! We have this in 1E! And OSR YouTube, for the most part, ignores this core difference and presents 1E as "rules-heavy BX."

If you read OSRIC, you will see most of the differences between OSRIC and BX are related to this phased-turn system. Once you understand this simple change, you unlock the power of 1E, and your games get much better and more tactical.

Gygax knew this was how you could fix casters and buff martial classes with an elegant, simple, clean phased-timing combat turn.

It is pure genius.

The 1E Bard

"The bard is an unusual class that starts out similar to the thief class, representing something like a medieval wandering troubadour, but at higher level is accepted into the secret society of bardic colleges and becomes a master of law, lore, and hidden knowledge, allied with the ancient druidic hierarchy."

-The Heroic Legendarium, p24

But OSRIC doesn't have a bard!

It does now.

Not having a bard felt limiting to me; I could hack one together with a multiclass thief/magic-user, but a classic bard class felt like it would push me more toward a 2E clone, like For Gold & Glory. We have an excellent bard, found over here in the Heroic Legendarium, an expansion for 1E material, but it works perfectly with OSRIC and any 1E game.

We have a d8 hit die and thief abilities that progress as thieves, but stop at 8th level. We get a morale buff, singing that negates monster singing attacks, and enthrall. What makes this version of the 1E, 2E, or 3E bard the best is that the book includes entirely unique "bard songs" used for the spells. Yes, bards, here you get your very own spell list. This is the premium deluxe; nothing held back. This book is mine, 1E bard. 96 music-based spells, all yours.

Since these are written for 1E, all spells have casting times and include segments. This is where BX spell lists break when trying to use them for 1E, and you can't claim 1E compatibility unless you include casting time all the way down to the segment, since 1E needs this for caster balance. Without segment-based casting, casters begin to become far too powerful. Time has always balanced casters, and lesser designers simplified the concept, thinking the audience couldn't handle the depth.w

Gygax knew how to balance casters: put them on the clock, let them get hit, and the spell gets lost. Instant martial advantage, and a huge buff to ranged, and rogues, the party's fast attackers were the anti-caster "spell defense" of the party. What do we get today? MMO DPS classes with a few skill tricks.

The more you see how Wizards removed the time factor in its versions of D&D, the more the house of cards starts to collapse. Even BX is weak to this comparison, and all BX derivative games share 5E's problems because of oversimplification. I have to call this out. I love BX, but I will call out its weaknesses and point to a superior design that fixes the fundamental flaw of oversimplifying casting time.

These bards are cool. They are the bards we deserved, and this book plus OSRIC is a match made in gaming heaven. You are not borrowing spells from other caster lists in a lazy hack, some sort of "house band" that never plays its own stuff. You get your own spells here, never borrowed, and you are not a "cover caster" recycling the greatest hits of other spellcasting classes.

Well, that makes a lot of my books useless, and it puts a lot of these other lazy game designer bard implementations to shame. If I see another bard implementation that sloppily borrows from everyone else's spell lists, I'm tossing the book out the window.

If you want 1E's superior design and a bard the game deserves, check out the OSRIC 3 plus Heroic Legendarium combination.

It's music to my ears.

The More I Learn OSRIC...

...the worse 5E gets.

There is an element of timing attacks, delays, spell disruption, and weapon specialization that OSRIC (1E, or AD&D) does in the base combat turn that renders most D&D 5E level 1 to 5 fighter abilities useless. The more I learned about OSRIC and its massively cleaned-up AD&D combat turn, the more Gary Gygax's genius shone through in a way that shocked me.

This is seriously good stuff. The original "advanced" game beats 5E by a mile, and my first-level fighter with a longsword specialization is making two attacks every other turn, starting with the first. So, an AD&D fighter has a permanent "action surge" every other turn?

Lethality is way down from Old School Essentials and most BX "death at zero" games. Because death happens at -10 hit points and "aid" isn't a roll, I have rarely had any outright deaths at level one. Even if my party is completely defeated, rarely, they go as low as -10, and as a game master, I can rule that the PCs are captured and ransomed, or that they need to attempt a breakout a week later from a cell.

AD&D is less deadly than BX?

What? This is not what D&D YouTube is telling me.

INT casters have a "max spells remembered" that is separate from Vancian magic slots, and they fill those slots from this "max pool," which they need to swap out and relearn from their spellbooks. Magic users are powerful, yes, but they are treated with far more respect and have more interesting learning and memorization mechanics here than "member a million spells' games. Magic users are cool and need to think ahead about the challenges they'll face.

Casting time and phased combat balanced caster power.

As I force myself to learn the system, the wisdom comes through. And future editions begin to fade. We really did have the best game back then. What 5E tried to do with special powers, 1E originally handled through structure and attack timing. We had all that before they tore it out of the turn structure and forced you to write it down as "subclass options" and powers they give as you level. They removed all the built-in options the turn structure gave us and turned them into record-keeping on the character sheets.

And a lot of new games live on assumptions and fallacies from older games, push some new designer trick, and call the old games clunky and too complicated. Design-wise, many crowdfunded games can't hold a candle to 1E. 5E breaks at high level; 1E doesn't, and it took us that many editions to figure out the company running D&D ships broken editions every time they bump up the version number.

1E doesn't break, and if you learn the system, it offers greater tactical options and a deeper caster game.

A few thousand monsters and spells, along with hundreds of subclasses, don't make a good game. It makes a worse one.

1E in the Age of BX

"Dictums are given for the sake of the game only, for if ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS is to survive and grow, it must have some degree of uniformity, a familiarity of method and procedure from campaign to campaign within the whole." 

"If it is all too plain and too easy, the players will quickly lose interest, and your effort will prove to have been in vain. Likewise, if the campaign is too difficult, players will quickly become discouraged and lose interest in a game where they are always the butt; again your labors will have been for naught." 

"The danger of a mutable system is that you or your players will go too far in some undesirable direction and end up with a short-lived campaign. Participants will always be pushing for a game which allows them to become strong and powerful far too quickly."

-Gary Gygax, AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide, Page 7

The huge push for AD&D 1E had two parts: D&D's early game was going in a million directions and getting out of control, and business reasons (royalties) to consider when creating a new game. That last part sucked, but I get it. But Gygax's words at the front of the original DMG warned us against much of what came after.

One is a warning against BX. I get it; BX is an amazing creative platform, far better than AD&D, and people knew that back in the late 1970s when this all started to come apart and AD&D was needed. Go to a convention, sit down to play "D&D," and you don't know what you're playing. You see this today with 5E tables, and the push for standardization is strong and needed for organized play.

Another warning worth heeding is making the campaign "too plain", which you see today in the multiverse-of-magic model modern D&D 5.5E is built on: every world is a colorful box of marshmallow shapes, everyone has magic, the planes are everywhere, and magic replaces technology. Today's modern, cosmopolitan, sci-fi, alien-packed D&D is both too mundane and far too magical. No unique ancestry is special anymore. Magic is so common it is boring.

A power level that gets out of control kills your game and drives players away. I don't like DMing a game where players laugh at carefully created challenges, and D&D 5.5E is horribly broken above 10th level, and they admitted they slacked off on testing the game's balance. Gygax carefully balanced AD&D to work all the way up to high levels. Ever since AD&D 2nd Edition, they have been destroying that.

But compared with BX, AD&D gives me more mental stimulation and puzzle-solving, which I enjoy more than BX's straightforward, highly malleable game. BX is like Silly Putty; it can be anything you want: a sci-fi game here, a detective game there. Where BX falls short for me is in being too simple and too malleable. There is nothing to "sink my teeth into" regarding weapon speed, reach, and encumbrance playing a major role in my martial character's survival.

There is a sidebar here about "BX Incorporated" which feels like a lot of the OSR these days, and the non-BX options feeling like second citizens. Gary's feelings about BX being so malleable and undefined are both its greatest strength and fatal flaw. I love BX, but not every retro-clone needs to be it, and we've forgotten plenty of what made AD&D so great.

My BX mage can choose from infinite spells and understand them all instantly. In AD&D (specifically OSRIC 3), I have a maximum number of "understood" spells per level, which defines the pool I can memorize daily spells from. Sure, I can play an INT 9 magic-user, but I can only understand 6 spells per spell level, and I will need to swap them out and relearn them from my spellbook to put them into that memorization pool. Practically, your INT is high enough that you don't hit the limit unless you are very high level and have collected a few hundred spells. Realistically, this is the balance we have always needed for casters: it forces them to study and build spell pools to pull from when it's time to memorize daily spells.

I like this feeling for magic! The spells are so big and complicated that they're hard to hold in your head, and you need to keep studying to swap things out and pull in ones you haven't used in ages. This one rule creates the Gandalf who sits by the fire, reads his spellbook, makes room in his head for that wall-of-ice spell he never uses, and tells the others to be quiet so he can get his understanding to roll, so they can all live tomorrow.

In BX and D&D 5E, mages have infinite RAM in their memories and can hold 300 first-level spells in their brains, plus 1500 others. There is no "re-understanding" a spell, and mages become entitled and overpowered mana conduits of death, with far too much spell choice, no forced thematic study, and, frankly, boring and overpowered. BX at least makes them less survivable, but I love AD&D's quirky thematic rules that force a magic-user to "act like Gandalf."

And games that copy elements of AD&D but forget these Gygaxian fiddly parts emulate the math but miss the finer details that "make the dish complete." The new OSE adopts AD&D-isms, but it omits all the intricate, Swiss-watch, deeply thematic, genre-defining minor rules. Watered-down AD&D is sometimes like a fast-food restaurant trying to make its own version of what a 5-star chef would prepare. 

Better than the burger on the menu? Yes. Is it exactly the same as what the master chef gave us?

Clearly, no.

And AD&D 2nd Edition, a game I love, lost its soul and started to creep into story gaming, moving away from the fiddly, intricate mechanics that forced players who learned the rules to act like the class the rules presented.

And OSRIC 3.0 is the community-supported version of the game, always there, and easy to learn and teach. People can publish for this. Until Wizards puts the original books back in print (unchanged) and open-licenses them, this is the best we got. You can't touch perfection. This is as close as we can get, and it's something we can build a community around.

And AD&D/OSRIC is far less complicated than D&D 5E, especially when you factor in the action economy, how builds interact with it, and what's allowed and what isn't. Mid- and high-level D&D 5.5E play is more complex than GURPS, and the combat turns take far longer to figure out. With AD&D, the mid-complexity is harder than BX and low-level 5E, but it keeps a flat difficulty curve all the way up to level 20. BX stays too simple, while 5E gets far too time-consuming.

And the complexity pays off, especially for martial characters balancing weapon speed and reach, picking specializations, gaining those bonuses, and fine-tuning their combat profile. Oh, and if you are not wearing a helmet, roll a d6. On a 1, your AC is 10 this turn as the blow comes at your head. Ah, thank you; all those dyed Supercuts hairstyles in 5.5E with characters missing head protection, go away. Football players and soldiers wear helmets, so should you. BX doesn't do that unless house-ruled, but why house-rule when we have it here, and it is a standard rule at all tables?

The more I sit down, forget the biases modern games have implanted in my mind, read the original AD&D books, and learn the classic 1E game, the more I see what's wrong with today's dichotomy between BX and 5E.

Off the Shelf: OSRIC 3

I love Adventures Dark & Deep, but it is a massive game. The low-level starting guide helps a lot, but I'd still play it after I'd exhausted 1E. And there is a lot to play in 1E. Dark & Deep feels like a massive modded game, and while I absolutely love those, sometimes a clean, basic ruleset appeals to me more than a "more stuff" game.

I want something clean, tight, with limited options, easy for new players, and expandable.

And I want a game that works.

OSRIC 3 will never let us down, nor will it ever be torn up and changed. Version 2 was very close, and version 3 is the closest yet to perfection. The first edition was one of those perfect games, and the downfall started when they messed with the formula, started commercializing the game, and sanitized it in reaction to the Satanic Panic. The second edition is really only as good as it is because of the first edition, but it was always a step down from its peak.

OSRIC is like OSE Classic for AD&D.

Sometimes, BX or 1E is all I want or need. A simple alchemical base. A clean, constrained, blank canvas from which I can create a million ideas. I don't want the extra stuff, and I can add most of it myself. Sure, this game doesn't have bards, but the book above has a great bard, and people have been hacking homebrew classes into 1E for nearly 50 years. Besides, the bard has been a bit of a trash fire for the last three editions of D&D, and I don't mind a game that lets me step away from them for a while and bring back the one I really like. This is true of many other expansion classes, too.

BX works well with 1E, and most of it is fully compatible.

1E is the only game that ever delivered balanced high-level play. Forget 2E; the expansions and splat-books blew it up. 1E is the only version of D&D that you could play to maximum level, and it still worked. BX only goes to 14. 1E goes all the way. It will never be broken since, like the original OSE, it is a reference work.

And high-level play is still very deadly. Resurrection is never guaranteed. Death has a price. All characters will die in this game, either after a short, adventurous life or after settling down and having heirs. Any other game that keeps your character alive forever is lying to you.

And OSRIC is community-supported. This is its biggest strength. Sure, I can buy POD copies of the original books and keep them safe, but those will not be on sale or available forever. OSRIC will endure long after the company and IP are sold off and merged into another trillion-dollar entertainment monopoly. I love the original game, but I love the community more. This is why I support OSRIC. It is open-licensed. They can never take this away from us. It will never change. It uses the fixed numbers and math the hobby's creator approved.

It's a beginner's game for 1E. That has never been done, and not even the original 1E game is easy for beginners. I can teach someone this pretty easily. I can do this with the Dark & Deep basic book, too, but OSRIC feels like OSE Classic Fantasy to me. I can teach anyone 1E.

But why 1E over BX?

For the same reasons Gary made AD&D: to standardize the rules. To have consistent convention play.  To reduce arguments and eliminate rule inconsistency. To have a balanced high-level game, something we've lost in 50 years of D&D and never had since.

Sure, BX is the beginner game and always was, but for people who come together and play seriously, 1E was the version of the game best designed for official and convention play. 2E fell into the story-gaming and power-gaming trap, lost its edge, changed the math, and it bankrupted the company. BX does not create a solid, long-term, convention-ready ruleset that eliminates ambiguity and house ruling. You don't have to make much up to play 1E, and everyone can agree on the rules and rulings. Ultimately, this speeds play and standardizes the experience for everyone.

Gary knew 1E was the best version of the game for long-term play, and in more than 50 years, that is still true.

While my 1E books are the original source, OSRIC is the community edition of the classic, and far easier to hand a new player and for the community to support.

The Best AD&D Style Games

Old-School Essentials put out the 2026 revision, and I have been sitting with the two core books longer than I meant to. Creative Commons instead of the OGL; the rules they actually needed to tidy; a pile of examples the earlier printings were thin on; and Advanced Fantasy is the only game they support these days. I like those books. I am just not sure they have decided which game they are playing.

Classic OSE was a restatement of BX: smaller hit dice, a short class list, race-as-class as the default shape of a person, spells that stop where Expert stops, and a level cap at 14. Advanced Fantasy was always the other product. Same procedures, extra classes, a race-and-class split, and a stack of AD&D features turned down so it wouldn't conflict with BX. It always reminded me of a cleaned-up version of the classic Labyrinth Lord game, or a BX+.

The revision brings first edition back into the game with optional d10 fighters sitting next to the old hit dice. Race-and-class sits next to race-as-class. High-level play is a DIY chapter that tells you to borrow from somewhere else if you want spells past what Expert printed. The publisher is clear about the cap: 14, and nothing BECMI is in the box.

So the question is no longer “is this a pretty BX book?” It is “is this BX, or is this AD&D Lite?” Once you ask that, you need to compare OSE Advanced to the other AD&D-like games on the shelf.

If you want AD&D-Lite: Swords & Wizardry

Swords & Wizardry Complete is my AD&D-Lite game. It is an OD&D zero-edition that gobbled up a bunch of expansion books and parts of AD&D, but refused to leave the 1970s and stuck with the little-book feeling. Assassin, monk, druid, paladin, ranger, one saving throw, 9th-level spells, characters that do not bounce off a wall at name level, and a monster list with magic resistance. That is what “lite” has to mean if the word is going to do any work. A demon can shrug a spell, and casters are not the masters of the universe anymore. We get the high-level spells and abilities here!

The high-level game is in the book.

OSE Advanced gives you the names. Paladin, ranger, illusionist, split race and class, and now the optional bigger hit dice. What it will not give you is the rest of that 1e machine, such as magic resistance, high-level play, and classes with a bit more depth. I still love the S&W fighter better than any other BX or 1E clone; this is peak OSR gaming. The single saving throw number is genius and erases pages of saving throw tables from the game.

S&W has a couple of expansion books that bring in barbarians, bards, illusionists, warlocks, and more monsters. If I want the "AD&D-isms" and don't want the full AD&D weight, Swords & Wizardry wins every time and comes with me in my travel bag.

If you want AD&D: OSRIC

If I actually want first edition, I play first edition, or I play the clone that exists so people can keep writing modules for it without the messy "for the first edition of the world's most popular role-playing game" prose. OSRIC was never trying to be the pretty book on the coffee table. It was a legal, usable AD&D clone so the community could ship adventures and say the name out loud. I am not waiting for it to become a lifestyle brand, and the game is already done, loved, and this is how we play 1E these days.

We had a major revision with OSRIC 3.0, and this is the new 1E standard-bearer. I know we can get the PoD books of the originals (with misprint errors), but I want the definitive source that opens the door for third-party publishers. I support OSRIC 3.0 with its new CC-based license. The originals are fine if it is "just me," but once we start playing with others and wanting new adventures and material, OSRIC will win every time.

OSE does not do that work. It will eat a mountain of BX and a lot of 1e content if I am willing to convert by feel, which I usually am, but that is not the same as sitting down with the 1e stack. I do not grab OSE Advanced because I want segments, weapon speed, magic resistance, and a spell list that treats 9th-level spells as optional. I grab it for BX procedures and a few extra toys. Oh, and the books are smaller and easier to travel with. OSE wins if I am on vacation and need a travel game.

When I want AD&D, OSRIC is the living clone. The revised OSE books are doing something else.

If you want AD&D-Plus: Adventures Dark & Deep

Joseph Bloch’s pitch has always been the continuation question I keep coming back to: what if Gygax had stayed and kept developing first edition instead of walking out of TSR in 1985? Adventures Dark & Deep starts from 1e and from the public hints about where that game was supposed to go next: new classes, a rebuilt bestiary, cleaned-up combat, and the whole thing treated like a product line that kept moving. This started as a what-if AD&D if Gary had stayed, and became a love letter to 1E with a few modern twists and treats.

I love this game but do not have the time to play it. This is my "ultimate AD&D" fanservice game. The combat is cleaned up, and weapon speed actually works. The skill system is genius. There is a Lite version that strips the game down to a playable core set of options, yet still is a remarkably complete game for the levels people actually play.

What OSE Advanced still is

I am not boxing the revision up. Leaving the OGL for Creative Commons is the right long-term move. The examples of play are what previous OSE printings were thin on, and one purchase path instead of five overlapping cores is easier for a new referee. I can still carve a Classic game out of the new books; they include a Basic Play section.

The old books are still fine. I can not upgrade, keep playing for decades, and house-rule in whatever I want. This is BX, not 5E. Factor in the Carcass Crawler zines, and I have more character races than any of the other three games on this table, including the new favorites people keep asking for. Those races will sit at a S&W table or an OSRIC table just as easily. The B/X world is still the more open room that way, and I am not locked to whatever a VTT character builder decided to support.

None of that fixes the focus problem. BX is a low-resolution game. AD&D is a high-resolution game. Put them side by side, and the BX picture gets blurry. Optional bigger hit dice, a parallel character-creation method, and a high-level chapter that admits I will have to loot another book for spell lists; that is two games sharing a spine, with the extra material not in the box.

If they later print a high-level book, a love-letter to BECMI, the conversation changes. One page of optional rules for high-level play does not turn OSE into an AD&D-clone, and so much is missing that this should have been left to another expansion.

OSE Classic, the discontinued Tome, the thing that made the line matter, was the best-in-class BX restatement. The revised Advanced books are a very good catalog of BX procedures plus selected 1e toys, scaled to Expert. As a BX game with extra hats, I will use them. As AD&D lite, they don't beat Swords & Wizardry Complete. As AD&D, they do not beat OSRIC. As the next step past an expanded first edition, they aren't even in the same room as Adventures Dark & Deep.

I try to know which feeling I am feeding before I take a book off the shelf. The new OSE will feed the BX one if I turn off half the options. For the other three, I buy the game built for them. For 90% of the cases, Swords & Wizardry is just right for me.

We just have so many good AD&D options these days that it is hard to see OSE plus one page of optional high-level play rules as real competition for any of them. The new OSE books should have left this out, or did a BECMI-like expansion later.

To Tweak or Not to Tweak? Capturing the Era

Do you tweak your games? It depends on how important it is to you that you are playing "exactly what was played" in the 1980s, down to the last class ability and numeric value. You are not tweaking the OSE fighter to make it more them, just rolling with what you got. After all, the class was designed like this; it worked back then, and why change it?

I have a few good reasons to bump OSE fighters' attack bonus by 2 across the board at every level, but is that the original game? No, it wasn't. And yes, it was. We did tweak and make adjustments back in the 1980's, too; very few of us played rules-as-written unless we were playing AD&D in a hobby store or other organized setting.

D&D was the home of the houseruled game.

AD&D, we tended to obey Gary's wishes and keep it as it was when we played with new people. Those were the "organized play rules," but even then, houseruled home games of AD&D were a huge thing.

We tend to put older games on pedestals and preserve them exactly as they were, trying to recapture the moment by not changing a thing and sticking to every letter printed on the page. We have a false sense of the past in which sticking to only what was written on that day was "official," and we artificially elevate its value.

Objects in the mirror may appear more important than they were.

It is important to have perspective and not silence the work of creators of third-party zines and others who turn OSE and BX into a living, breathing game open to discussion and expansion. To them, the game is a modern platform, worthy of support and expansion, and new and fresh ideas are the way forward. They take the base game, written in today's era, and move it forward, as if we had the same open license and freedom we could have had back in the 1980s, had TSR not been so closed-shop and litigious.

If you see OSE as a modern platform, you will, of course, tweak and mod it.

If you see OSE as a 1980s rules-simulator, you will be less likely to mod it.

If you are more into the rules-simulation side of the hobby and do not want to mod the game, then games like Swords & Wizardry and its 1970s simulation of the game's state during that time will appeal to you more. Also, there are some who absolutely do not want to list a page of houserules to a new group, and that can scare people away faster than anything you ever understand.

I have had a group of new players never begin a 5E game since I had a page of houserules, and I wanted to use the 2014 game (since that meant a few players did not have to buy new books). The group never started. They all found other things to do. The game died before it even began.

Why do we need all these houserules?

Is the game broken?

I don't want to buy a new game that is broken and needs all these house rules I will never understand!

Houserules can scare off new players, since they see a list of things they don't understand, have to mesh with a new game, and figure out the "how and why" of how it all works before a die is even rolled. Most will just quit and go do something else that doesn't need houserules. There is great value in saying, "This is what we are playing." You can point to one book, and the discussion is over. The contract is set; learn that book. This is the game we all agreed to, and we can play.

I am not against house rules, but I know how hard they can make it for some new players. For a group comfortable with each other and the game, houserules are great.

And games like Swords & Wizardry, which replicate the 1970s state of the game, the rulings, the common assumptions of the meanings, and laying out exactly where the clear and vague parts were, while trying to present the commonly agreed-upon interpretations, are also invaluable, even from the perspective of historical simulation.

If Dungeon Crawl Classics is a reinterpretation of "1970s play" through a modern game design lens, rooted in 3.5E-era sensibilities, then Swords & Wizardry is the actual game we played in the late 1970s. The games offer two views of the same era: DCC is more focused on random tables, imagination, and fun, while S&W presents the game as it was at that moment in time.

The pain of Vietnam was dulling; the gas lines and inflation of the 1970s were still in the discussion; the hippies had all gotten jobs; condo-living was a thing; disco was dying; arena rock was resurgent; and the era of over-the-air TV was being replaced by cable. The Cold War still raged on. The Reagan era was just over the horizon.

And we did not have AD&D yet. We pieced together rules from the original books and did our best to figure everything out. When BX came along, it was a restatement and clarification, the game coming into focus.

And the AD&D books took a few years to release! In 1977, it was the Monster Manual, followed in 1978 by the PHB, and in 1979 by the DMG. Imagine taking two years to release a game today, book by book. There was a whole year with just the original books and the Monster Manual; none of us knew what to do, what rules to use, and what was coming. The Monster Manual dropped into the middle of this discussion, and many pulled it into their existing games as-is.

By the time 1979 rolled around, it was all AD&D, and the 1970s and the original chaotic game we embraced were over. We had our official "organized play rules," and that was that. But those five years from 1974 to 1979? Those were the days of zero edition, and what DCC tries to replicate, along with the game Swords & Wizardry presents and reframes so well.

OSE is both a simulation and a modern platform, depending on your wants. It is best for new players of the game, and it will get better in the new edition with more examples of play and additional features to help new players. You can play this as a recreation, or use it as a platform to support gaming moving forward, just like a 5E.

The original BX games are exactly what they are, without the new presentation or reframing. They are locked in time, cannot be written for (outside of OSE), and will not change. They are more valuable as "the actual thing" and a historical record, and weaker as a platform. They were both released in 1980 and reflect the newer era. Remember, the red and blue books were released the year after the DMG came out, and reflected the "for kids" easier version of the game.

Many of us chose to stick with AD&D and ignored these books, though they had a certain charm.

I feel the same way about S&W as I do BX, in that S&W is the easier version of AD&D, streamlined and stripped down to the best parts, and all the slow, heavy, and excess rules out of the picture. If I want AD&D today, I have OSRIC 3.0. Communities and open licenses are more important than nostalgia. The platform for creativity comes first.

S&W recaptures the lighting-in-a-bottle of the 1974 to 1979 period, along with all the common assumptions, interpretations, and the original "hippies in a van and black felt neon paint posters" sort of feeling that era had. This could be seen as a "modern platform" too, and the expansion books treat it exactly that way. It is also an "easier" version of AD&D, before the huge rulebooks came out and clarified every little vague area of the rules and inconsistencies.

The Case for OSRIC Over Swords & Wizardry

Swords & Wizardry still has a lot of high-end combos and exploits that turn the upper-level game into a thrash-fest, where you can use a buff-focused caster on a monk to deal death and insane amounts of damage. This unhinged high-level game is familiar to those of us who enjoy Dungeon Crawl Classics, and that is a feature of 1970s gaming - not a flaw or oversight. The game was designed to have insane power combos at high level, and that is what it is.

This is also a feature of 70s gaming: if you reached a high level, all bets were off. DCC does this so well and encapsulates the feeling of the time; you go from hero to insane god of power. S&W has that swingy, unhinged play at higher levels, and it is meant to be a houserule, ban exploits, and serve as a "house system" for a group that likes to hack and add to the rules.

At lower levels, this is like "enhanced, houseruled BX" and it plays identically. There are flavor differences here in some of the classes, with slightly more abilities and power than a standard BX character. Some of these abilities are coming to OSE (fighter multi-attacks per round vs. 1 HD or less creatures, assassin backstab) in the next version, so S&W does get a lot right and sets the BX standard in many areas. The fighter is the standout class for me, and it feels much more satisfying to play than the OSE version, without needing to houserule or wait for next year's revision.

And, S&W is cross-compatible with any OSE race. OSE tends to set higher racial level limits, so that is more of a bonus than a drawback. I will play S&W and use the OSE races as-is, and it is a great-feeling combo, and I can have my dragonborn, tieflings, and all the nu-fantasy classics right there in a comfortable game with the OG classes as they were in the 1970s.

AC, hp, HD, hit-modifiers? The same across OSE and S&W. There is one saving throw number in S&W, which I still feel is genius, and lets that number be used for any saving throw effect. I am not trying to decide if a save is a wand or a spell. It is a save. Some classes get bonuses to specific areas. If a new effect comes along, such as a save versus entanglement, mental attack, parasites, life leech, or confusion, it is just the save number. We are done here.

In OSRIC, the high-level game is far better balanced and sane, and the game holds together much better without dipping into exploits or unintended consequences. The high-end game holds together, and it is not as wild or swingy. It is intended to be played "as-is" and not hacked or homebrewed. This is the OG 1980s convention-play official rules, and you don't really deviate from the book.

By the time we get to the 1980s, balance is important, and those groups grew tired of the high-level swingyness. The game lost something, that slapstick, freewheeling, punch. The rules needed standardization for convention play. We needed "one way to play" so we could all play together.

OSRIC is the perfect game for capturing a moment in time when gaming was at its best. Sorry, Stranger Things, nobody played 5E in the 1980s, and Wizards of the Coast and its Magic: The Gathering would bankrupt TSR ten years later. I was there when the hobby stores reduced the D&D and RPG space for MTG tables, and a hobby shop owner told me, "Nobody plays D&D anymore here."

If you want to play high-level AD&D adventures without having to houserule cheese combos out of the game, OSRIC will do a fine job. If you play DCC and love the cheese combos, and love seeing a monk slap a dragon around like he was Bruce Lee, play S&W. At lower levels, though, S&W works exactly like BX and does not feel unbalanced.

OSRIC will hold together at higher levels much cleaner, at the cost of increased complexity, more record keeping, and slower play. OSRIC also has the higher base hit-die values than BX, which I see as a negative. I don't like fighters having a d10 hit die since it inflates hit points and slows combat. Sure, you are more survivable as a result, but the more constrained and tighter hit dice of BX make the game more deadly, and fast-playing, and higher-level characters do not have as many hit points.

1E started the "bag of hit points" slog that got worse in every edition past this, and even AD&D 2E started to give monsters hundreds of hit points as a result of the tougher characters in AD&D. Combat got very slow by the time 2E rolled around, and people left for GURPS.

By the time we got to 4E, monsters had 1,400 hit points, and Wizards had completely lost their minds.

BX has the best hit dice and keeps the classic d4 thief and magic user that we have all come to love and fear. S&W shares that philosophy. ORSIC starts the hit point slog, and complexity and slower play increase as a result. More hit points do not equal a better game. In fact, constraining hit points makes the game better, since each point matters.

Also, death is an issue. In OSE, it is death at 0 hp. In OSRIC, it is bleeding out and death at -10 hp (OSE will get this in the revision). In S&W, it can be either death at 0 hp or death at a "negative level hp" with bleeding out. S&W feels the best to me, and gives me either option. Death is heavily houseruled, though, but it is worth mentioning.

That said, who plays games past level 14? I think maybe 3-5% of the gaming population plays games at this level. For 95% of everyone else, just picking up Old School Essentials will be fine for games that last way past the time when most campaigns wrap up and end. Level 14 is an epic power level in BX.

If you are playing that long and appreciate the pedantic depth that 1E brings, start and stick with OSRIC. If you couldn't care less about table modifiers, weapon speeds, and other 1E minutiae, stick with OSE. If you want the 1E feeling without the 1E rules and want things to stick closer to houseruled BX, play S&W.

I doubt you will ever see some of the exploits and cheese in S&W since very few play that high. You could play OSRIC, OSE, and S&W and barely see a difference up to level 14. There is a lot made about nothing here, and houseruling and banning silly combos is expected in S&W. Most do what we did, let it happen once, laugh, and then ban it as a cheese move. There is a magic in being the first to find these, and then the gods catch up to your tomfoolery and ban the silly combo.

Zeus would be sitting up on Mount Olympus, shaking his head and telling the epic heroes to "cut it out."

This is sort of the relationship between the players and the referee in these games, too.

The game and the rules were a fluid dialogue and free-form train of thought. They were less of a set of rules and more of a discussion of fantasy fulfillment within a loose framework.

As a side note, S&W uses the magic resistance mechanic from 1E, and S&W's monsters are closer to 1E in compatibility. Any OSRIC or 1E bestiary is easily a S&W resource. Also, with S&W, you get classic demons and devils out of the box, whereas in OSE, they come in a book being delivered next year. From the previews, the demons and devils in OSE will be their own thing, interesting designs that seem fun to play and have unique threats and mechanics. If you want to stick with the classic infernal monsters, S&W and OSRIC will be your best bet.

I like S&W since the classes bring more to the table than OSE, and the expanded classes feel great and play well. If I want a bard, I can have a bard. There are two bards, too! The bard is a storyteller druid, while the troubador is a performer illusionist. We also have necromancers and warlocks. The expanded classes rock and are a lot of fun. In OSE, the bard is more of a druid-style and feels more basic and straightforward.

That said, there is nothing wrong with simplicity. Where S&W classes have that oomph, the OSE classes are iconic and feel perfectly balanced. They are a touch on the simple side, and being a former 5E player, S&W's diverse assortment of class abilities appeals more to me (C&C is the same way for me).

Coming from BX, the straightforward and iconic OSE appeals to me greatly. 

Coming from 5E and DCC, the allure of S&W with its custom class abilities is irresistible.

Having grown up in the 1980s, there is nothing wrong with OSRIC or sticking to the tried-and-true.

One Point of AC and Stat-Flation

Old School Essentials, BX D&D, and Swords & Wizardry, along with White Box, use a base AC of 9 for unarmored targets. The ascending AC to-hit number (AAC) for this is 10 or higher on a d20. In AD&D, the unarmored AC became 10, with an ascending AC to-hit number of 10 or higher on a d20. The formulas are slightly different to calculate: in BX, 19 - AC equals the AAC to-hit; in 1E, 20 - AC equals the AAC to-hit.

I have always preferred the BX base AC of 9 to the later AC base of 10. For one, the extra room in the AC muber started introducing new types of armor to fill gaps, like banded or splint mail, and the armor game felt muddled in comparison. Fighters tended to head towards plate mail anyway, and more types of armor did not really add much to the game.

The differences in AC come up when trying to use 1E modules or monsters in BX games; you need to make a one-point adjustment in the AC value to get the numbers perfect. There is no AC 10 in a BX game like there is in a 1E game.

Sometimes the numbers are exactly the same, but you will see a one-point difference in the AAC value. The Kobold on OSE has AC 7 [12], while the Kobold in OCSRIC 3.0 has AC 7 [13]. You will notice that both numbers add up to either 19 or 20, but the 7 [12] number of BX just feels more natural to me.

Which game has the easiest to-hits?

S&W gives a +1 to-hit modifier at STR 13, and a +1 damage modifier at 16. Only fighters get these bonuses; a +1 cap optional rule is present for other classes. This is the most hardcore game, but it is also the fairest.

OSRIC gives a +1 to-hit modifier at STR 17, and a +1 damage modifier at 16, and this is for all characters.

White Box typically gives a +1 starting at STR 15, and in some games this only applies to damage, while in others it applies to both damage and to-hit.

OSE gives a +1 to-hit and damage modifier starting at STR 13, and this is for all characters. This is the most generous game, but also the least fair.

So, in general, S&W is the most hardcore game that limits ability score modifiers the most, while OSE is the most generous. OSRIC is less generous, while White Box is slightly more. I like the less generous games when it comes to ability score bonuses, since it takes the focus off having high ability scores, and it allows more of the 3d6-generated characters to be viable.

In S&W, a STR 7 character is not penalized in terms of melee damage or to-hit, so I can be happy with rolling a 7 for my thief's STR, and it will not affect their combat abilities one bit. In OSE, that STR 7 thief will have a -1 in both to-hit and damage, and with a 1d4 dagger as a weapon, that becomes huge. In OSRIC, a -1 to-hit. In White Box, same as S&W, no penalty.

That STR 7 thief is just not viable in OSE or OSRIC.

In S&W, my STR 7 thief is just as deadly with a dagger as a STR 15 thief. We have the same chance to force open a door. The stronger thief can carry 10 more pounds of loot. I can be a scrawny, no-good thief in S&W and still feel perfectly fine, not like I am being penalized.

3d6 generation is still viable in White Box and S&W; more characters can be played since the ability scores matter less. Shouldn't they matter? Actually, they shouldn't, since we want the focus to be on problem-solving and the environment. That +1 to-hit and damage will fool you into thinking combat is still a viable option, when in any BX or 1E game, it just isn't.

And the stat-flation that plagues D&D 3 through 5E started in BX with the universal ability score modifier table and those too-generous ability score modifiers. The moment you open up "bonuses for everybody" is the moment you begin to need heroic ability score generation methods, such as 4d6 and drop the lowest. You are trying to "give everyone a bonus" in something, and it starts breaking the game.

In 5E, a +4 for everybody at 18 breaks the game. And given most characters are guaranteed these days to have at least one 18 in their prime attribute, the entire game is just building a bridge on broken pilings. The original polyhedral dice begin to mean less and less the higher the modifiers go, to the point where they become meaningless. Even the d20 became meaningless in D&D 3.5E with +20 to-hit numbers, and the designers had no clue except "make the numbers bigger."

Wizards have consistently gotten the math wrong for the last 25 years, and we have edition after edition to prove it.

"4d6 and drop the lowest" is just trying to solve a problem that too-generous ability score modifiers introduced. Remove the importance of modifiers, and 3d6 is viable again. Ability scores become descriptors instead of critical numbers for the game. My weak, scrawny thief is just as deadly and should be treated as a serious threat. A low STR is just a physical description at this point and has less of an impact on the game, or a minor one at best.

If I get lucky and roll a STR 18 thief in OSE? A permanent +3 to STR and damage all the time, even with that 1d4 dagger. Sure, it sounds fun, but it introduces an imbalance and upward pressure on ability scores, where the 97% of other characters who aren't as lucky feel penalized and not viable.

My STR 7 S&W thief? Sure, he gets no bonus to-hit or to damage, but he is just as deadly as any other thief. The focus on ability scores is removed, and my character must be clever and interact with the environment to survive, rather than relying on them and the false sense of security they provide.

Combat in any version of the early game, 0E to 1E, is a losing proposition.

That +3 is not going to help you when a random goblin kills you with a shortbow. Sure, the +3 feels great, but it creates a mix of entitlement and a false sense of security. This is one of those times when "it doesn't matter" and "it does matter" are both true at once; it just depends on your perspective.

And once you put too high an importance on ability score modifiers as a way to "win the game," you will get into the physiological differences between races and genders, and that whole argument. My female, lithe, STR 8 Egyptian temple assassin is just as deadly and dangerous as that male half-orc STR 16 assassin with the bulging muscles. Remove the ability score modifiers, and you remove the entire argument.

Plus, if we are trying to simulate fantasy fiction, a high STR only really mattered for fighters and those moments the writer wanted to flex on cleaving enemies in two with a greatsword. For most other characters in that narrative, a high STR never really came into play that much. That STR 8 temple assassin is going to be just as deadly to Conan as any other, in terms of narrative fiction.

When you get too many game designers in a room, they will make the math matter more than the narrative fiction, and something of value will be lost.

Swords & Wizardry is the OSE of AD&D

Want to play an AD&D 1E-like game, but don't want all the rules? Want something more than Old School Essentials, love the demons and devils of AD&D, and want to progress all the way to the highest-level 9th and 7th level magic-user and cleric spells? But you do not want all the AD&D rules? You do not want to get bogged down in all the minutiae and charts and tables of a 1E recreation? Do you want OSE-like hit die values without the higher dice of AD&D?

Swords & Wizardry is 1E-Lite, and quite likely the perfect game for you.

Where OSE is the beautiful simplicity and unmatched organization of BX, S&W is rules-light AD&D. This is the perfect zero edition set of rules, before AD&D came along and became an overwritten, heavily ruled, detail-focused, and messy set of charts and tables for every minor adjustment. S&W is the "fast table play" version of AD&D I always wanted.

And the single-saving-throw-number mechanic is still genius.

S&W is OSE for AD&D.

Now, S&W isn't as well organized as OSE, not by a long shot. But it does not need it. Where OSE is the meticulous layout and bullet-point presentation, S&W is more a freeform discussion of the game, done in as little text as possible, keeping it to just what you need to play. There are boxes that explain the history of the game's rules, making modding easy, and explaining how things were different in the 1970s versus the more structured 1980s.

This is also a key difference: S&W is rooted in the 1970s version of the game, whereas OSE lies closer to the cleaned-up, highly organized, and simplified 1980s. Before they removed demons and devils, and things were still very swingy and OP, like the S&W fighter, S&W preserves the 1970s version of the game before TSR went corporate, and we had the for-adults AD&D and for-kids D&D split and messy divorce.

S&W is from a time when there was one game for everyone, with everything in it, yet it retained the simplicity of BX. It was uncensored, unfiltered, and unafraid to leave things up to the players and the referee to work out. There are parts of this game where you are supposed to "make it up yourself," and that is the game's beauty.

S&W was not afraid to let some classes be OP in certain areas, like fighter and combat, whereas OSE tends to tamp down everyone's power and stacking abilities. S&W has combos that are OP at high level, and that is a beautiful thing. S&W also explicitly gives STR bonuses to-hit and damage only to fighters, and even rangers and paladins are excluded from this bonus (they have other powers).

S&W ends up having the best fighter class in the OSR and gives them a massive role-protection bonus. Other classes must make do, and it is not really a problem. I like this choice because it reduces the importance of ability score modifiers and does not make high-STR thieves OP. You can be a STR 7 thief and not have a damage or a to-hit penalty (though STR 6 or lower starts to get penalized for all characters). As an optional rule, high STR can be capped to a +1 for other classes (if the bonus is present), but only fighters get the full bonus.

Ability score modifiers are not as important in S&W as they are in OSE, and that is a good thing that avoids ability score inflation. Many more classes are viable (and not penalized) for a straight 3d6-down-the-line generation method here than in any other OSR game.

The game has expansions, too, covering modern classes like the bard and druid. So if you want expanded classes that go all the way to the highest level spells, this is your game. It is AD&D without all the complexity; it just runs and plays as fast as OSE, and it has the missing high-level game where you can cast wish, holy word, time stop, and gate spells.

Since the hit dice and AC values match OSE perfectly, everything is 100% cross-compatible between OSE and S&W, since they are practically sister games. Monsters, treasures, and adventures are all 100% compatible between OSE and S&W. S&W can be seen as a "character mod and full conversion" for OSE.

Racial level limits are higher in OSE than S&W, so if you use that rule, agree on which game is dominant, and stick with that. If you use OSE's suggestions, that opens the door to using any of the OSE races, including those in the Carcass Crawler Zines, as potential S&W races. This opens up tieflings, dragonborn, ratlings, and many other races to S&W play.

S&W is the missing AD&D-style rules and level expansion for OSE.

Where AD&D can be slower and heavier, with things like weapon speed and all the different values on the ability score charts, S&W sticks to the "fast and fun" play of OSE. You could play OSRIC 3.0 instead, but it wouldn't play as fast or be as easy to get into. OSE will win the new player experience battle, but S&W will win the high-level play and class options battle. Add in the OSE races, and S&W wins the player options battle in any OSR game.

If you love OSE but miss AD&D, then S&W is your dream game. This game often flies under the radar, but it is one of the original OSR games and is still going strong.

S&W is also one of the most moddable and open OSR games out there, easily pulling in everything you love about OSE and putting an AD&D framework on it all. You don't need to give anything up.